Covering third parties and independent candidates since 2008

Menu

Numerous individuals have reported to IPR that Gary Johnson or members of his campaign are contacting members of the Libertarian National Committee, one of the main decision-making bodies in the Libertarian Party.

At the same time, Wayne Root, the former Vice Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party and At-Large member of the Libertarian National Committee, has left a comment at IPR suggesting that he has been involved in recruiting former Governor Gary Johnson to run for the Libertarian Party nomination for President.

Since I’ve been heavily recruiting Gary Johnson to LP for weeks…I had dinner with him in Baltimore a month ago…spent much time with his campaign senior advisor in the past few days…

I think it’s pretty clear I support Gary to be our Presidential nominee.

He continues later on in the comment:

Gary is the perfect candidate. Answer to my recruiting efforts.

The most fiscally conservative governor in America. Mr. Veto. Never allowed a spending or tax increase in 8 years as Governor.

I also have spoken with, and greatly respect, Governor Johnson. That said, I don’t understand why Root seems to think an Israel-centric foreign policy needs to be a prerequisite for any political candidate.

Obviously, Israel has every right to exist, and I would never support any candidate who denies that. But I don’t see why it has to be included in almost everything Root posts.

Does Wayne get a dollar for every time he says Israel? Is Gary Johnson aware of just how devisive Wayne is to the party?

These questions and more.. but first, my last reply to this:
Wayne, just how exactly does being a “huge supporter of Israel” manifest itself in a Libertarian campaign?

Please be specific.
And how would you contrast that with Ron Paul’s answers to the same topic?

Face it Wayne you are a war monger, neo conservative, you want us in up to our knees in debt to “back Israel at all cost” even though it is absolutely not in our interest to do so. FACT.

So I know you have an “Israel first” attitude by I would urge you not to take Johnson down with you.

I have an America first attitude and I recognize that “protecting Israel at all costs” including preemptive war for bogus reasons, is bull.

There is no way to “protect Israel at all costs” and not have troops stationed around the world, you have to have an infrastructure for that. And that as we know costs around a trillion a year. I have an interest in a balance budget …..soon.

I would go so far as to tell Iran that “if” they attacked Israel without provacation that we would flatten them like a pancake, but it’s such a ludicrous Michelle Bachman thing to believe that Iran would even try that.

Israel is about 20% Arab, are you saying Iran would nuke them? Then look at the countries around Israel, do you really believe any of those countries would be happy if someone launched a nuclear attack on Israel, which would effect them greatly? And why would the Muslims want Israel after a nuclear bomb was dropped on it?

It is simply never going to happen, so again… how does being a “huge supporter of Israel” manifest itself in a Libertarian campaign?

If you can describe why you think it is is such a big deal to be a “huge support of Israel” I think it might help you to understand just how unlibertarian, and un American you are. Because as our founders said about the nation of Israel…. Oh wait… they didn’t.

Excuse me for a late response to your questions but it’s been a whirlwind few days- my oldest child Dakota gets back from Harvard today for Christmas break, and my youngest child Contessa celebrates her 4th B-Day today. We are preparing Christmas decorations, presents, and 2 celebrations at once! In between I’ve had over 30 media interviews in past few days.

OK. 4 things.

#1) My role as LNCC Chairman is to recruit and train LP candidates. My job is to find good candidates like Gary Johnson – from top of ticket, all the way to bottom.

Gary is the first of many elected or former elected officials – I hope- that we can convince to change parties- as I predicted in my book “The Conscience of a Libertarian.”

That is the fastest way to success and credibility for the LP- to go after “the whales.” Get people already in office to switch. I hope Gary is a “model” for many others to switch.

#2) Some of you on IPR have misunderstood my meaning of “Libertarian-conservative.” I use it to simply denote a stress on economic issues.

Because A) the economy and jobs and spending and taxes are the most important issues of our day, and the most important issues to average mainstream voters.

And B) polls prove that a large majority of voters agree with the simple concepts of fiscal conservatism- smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, pro capitalism. Those are winning issues for the LP.

C) I’m also trying to stress what we in the LP have in common with the Tea Party- which is fiscal conservatism.

D) I’m trying to stress what we have in common with small business owners- by far the most natural group to agree with LP on fiscal issues. Almost every small business owners considers themselves fiscally conservative.

But like all Libertarians, I am fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.

Conservative simply denotes the stress on fiscal and economic issues which I talk about nonstop on 1000+ media interviews a year.

All I care about is that LP candidates have a moderate, pragmatic position that doesn’t frighten or repel mainstream voters. That doesn’t seem radical, extreme, or risky. The issue of Israel has repelled mainstream voters towards the LP for 40 years.

By moderation, all I mean is do not appear or sound anti-Israel, or sound hateful, or anti-semitic, or offend Jewish and Christian voters.

That’s all I ask. Pretty reasonable and moderate common sense request if you have any interest in ever electing a LP candidate to anything, in a nation that is highly supportive of Israel.

My personal position is that, although I am a fan and supporter of Israel, I am a Libertarian and constantly say in public and on hundreds of media interviews that I believe in ending our current wars, dramatically cutting military bases around the world, dramatically phasing out foreign aid and military aid- for countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Let these rich countries support their own defense. And cutting the defense budget- just like I want to cut all other departments of government.

I argue publicly that there is no possible way to balance the budget or keep us from economic disaster due to spiraling debt without including defense spending in the massive cuts needed.

But the way to appeal to mainstream voters in a moderate and pragmatic way, and not frighten mothers and grandmothers, and not offend tens of millions of Jews and Christians who love and support Israel…

is for LP candidates to answer the question in a non-offensive and non-threatening moderate, pragmatic way. To support cuts in defense…cuts in foreign aid, cuts in military bases…but not to demand instand end to everything. Too radical, too extreme, too risky, won’t happen…and you’ll never get anyone elected to even start the job in a small way.

I’m trying to get LP candidates elected. Try to bite off too much, and sound too radical or risky, and the result is that no one will elect us to do anything. That’s a pretty clear lesson of past 40 years.

And the moderate, pragmatic, common sense way to approach cutting foreign aid to popular Israel is also moderation…

We can explain it by proposing to cut out or phase out foreign aid first to our enemies in the world. Simple and accepted by a majority of Americans.

Eventually that will allow us to phase out all foreign aid- even to our good friends like Israel.

But any cut off has to be slow and over a number of years to enable good friends to make a gradual and successful transition.

It’s that simple. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. If you ask for too much, you will get nothing. A lesson of success in business, politics, relationships, life.

#4) Finally, a recommendation- please be nicer, be more accepting to anyone you don’t agree with 100%. Or Libertarians will wind up turning off or frightening people who are “small l” libertarian-leaning.

We need to build a big tent. We need to convert Tea Partiers, conservatives fed up with the GOP, blue dog Democrats fed up with the socialist Democratic Party, and independents who care so strongly about economic issues and jobs. Every group I just mentioned is at their foundation fiscally conservative.

We cannot recruit or convert those voters unless we are moderate, pragmatic, common sense, not too radical or threatening.

The way some of you attack not just me, but anyone who disagrees on one issue, or who won’t support radical immediate change, is a turn-off to moderate voters who don’t want to be viciously attacked, denigrated or condemned for disagreements on issues. Mainstream independent voters are looking for positive dialogue and compromise- NOT vitriol.

We need to recruit and convert these mainstream voters for us to ever succeed. Vitriol will scare them, not convince them to listen or switch to LP.

By being declared “de facto spokesman” by the national media, I have proven that my strategy and moderate, pragmatic, common sense Libertarianism philosophy is a winner for the LP…if the goal is electing Libertarians, and not building a debate club.

This is politics. We need to be Libertarians, not librarians.

Success in the media is the foundation of winning elections.

And beyond media, the next goal is to receive approval from mainstream voters. My many media appearances attract fantastic and often overwhelming response from my target audience- conservatives, Tea Partiers, independents, and blue dog Democrats.

We need to seek approval of more groups than just Libertarians. There aren’t enough of them to win elections. We need to make the tent bigger.

After 40 years of a “private debate society,” I’m shaking things up. Change scares people. It shouldn’t. Because success only comes from change.

Just keep reminding yourselves- we are Libertarians, not lonely librarians.

—–
By being declared “de facto spokesman” by the national media, I have proven that my strategy and moderate, pragmatic, common sense Libertarianism philosophy is a winner for the LP…if the goal is electing Libertarians, and not building a debate club.
—–

One step at a time. 40 years in the wilderness is a very long time. You can’t undo it in a day. First you need media acceptance. Then…great candidates who are telegenic, charismatic, dynamic, media savvy and likeable. And they w=either have to be wealthy and self-funded, or business savvy and connected- therefore able to raise huge sums of money.

Until LP has candidates with all of these qualities…and can out spend GOP and Democrat opponents, there will be no big victories for major office.

But I’ve already proven the model in 2 ways…

#1) My model isn’t LP, it’s the New York State Conservative Party. The perfect model for LP. They elected James Buckley to U.S. Senate in 1971 with my exact strategy- and I was there for the entire campaign cutting my political teeth (at age of 10).

The right third party candidate with the right amount of money can beat the 2 party system.

#2) My LNCC only wrote I believe it was 10 checks for select LP candidates who fit my criteria as best as we could find in 2010 election. I believe we picked- out of every LP candidate in America- most of the top vote getters percentage-wise in the USA for LP.

Either I’m Houdini…or a great oracle with a crystal ball…or I simply have a winning strategy.

It’s such common sense. LP candidates have to be telegenic, media savvy, good resume and impressive career to tout to public, have ability to raise money, and moderate pragmatic views on issues.

That simple. Those candidates will get 10% instead of 1%…or 30% instead of 5%…and eventually one will win.

After one wins- like James Buckley- the dam will break. You need the one role model.

But all of that is great…but still won’t win a thing until you find candidates who can spend or raise minimum of $100,000 for local office, $1,000,000 for Congress, $5 Mm for U.S. Senate.

A good candidate funded with that kind of money…will win elections as a Libertarian…as long as they don’t sound radical or extreme.

WAR @7
“My personal position is that, although I am a fan and supporter of Israel, I am a Libertarian and constantly say in public and on hundreds of media interviews that I believe in ending our current wars, dramatically cutting military bases around the world, dramatically phasing out foreign aid and military aid- for countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Let these rich countries support their own defense. And cutting the defense budget- just like I want to cut all other departments of government.”

Good job ! You truly have came a long way since switching to the LP. Still Wish you could slip in “Visit the LP.ORG for even more info” on each media appearance as that might help guide the listeners to join or contact local LP orgs. Building the Party at the local level!

Now something that will show you are a TRUE friend and fellow traveler,

Is it LSU or Bama ?
OK St. or Stanford ?
OR or WI ?
MI or VaTech?
WV or Clemson?

If it all boils down to the economy then we should focus on a few things:
1. Ending the wars and bringing our troops home now, 1/3 of our budget is going to that, we need to stop before we are bankrupt.

2. Shutting down the Federal Reserve before they give every last dollar we have to their friends in the banking industry. Truth is they may have already screwed the pooch.

3. We can argue about taxes all day long, when we should be talking about spending.

4. End corruption in Washington and you save the economy.

In the last 10 years we have shipped our entire economy over-seas, no not by jobs, but via wars and banks.

The American people know something is wrong, the OWS movement and the Tea Party, both sprang from this horrible feeling that we were getting screwed, why not explain to them just how they are getting screwed and be the solution, not the problem.

And lastly Wayne, I think it’s weird how certain politicians and mainly mmm you, seem to overplay the general publics devotion to Israel. Besides creepy Republican politicians, and hardcore religious zealots, I never run into anyone with this die hard dedication to a foreign country.

Lose the 40 years in the do-nothing wilderness rhetoric. It makes you sound like a looney-tune to your base that knows better. At best.

Saying things like Libertarians will get 30% and even win someday when that’s old news and they’re winning makes you sound like the village know-it-all lout. Saying things like you’re bringing in Johnson when others set things in motion long before you showed up makes you sound like a silly man. Bottom line: If you have no respect or conception of how your party got there, the reaction is you’ll know less of any other issue. I know at heart you must realize this since you’re not forming your own party.

All the things you’re using, from the LNCC to the laws allowing the modern internet to ballot access to a world without the Commies on our necks, is because Libertarians fought for it…while fighting off right-wing idiots and government moles out to wreck the party at every turn. I don’t know how many candidates I’ve seen sounded like you and got creamed by an opponent who knew (and in many cases practiced) Libertarianism better than they did.

That said, keep up the good work. You’re improving your message, playing to your strengths, and done things like get in appointed public office first. Above all, you got en-too-siasm, kid. I look forward to Senator Root giving Congress a hell of a surprise.

So is this legit? Last week, IPR was gushing that Gary Johnson was going to announce that he was running as a Libertarian. At least there are names this time out but right now I have little faith in this site on Johnson.

JJM @ 16 writes; In the last 10 years we have shipped our entire economy over-seas, no not by jobs, but via wars and banks.

Not to correct you John, but during the Vietnam War we started to increase imports from Asia, especially with steel and other autos, motorcycles,etc.

It seem that ships taking war materials to Vietnam did not want to come back empty, and meanwhile steel workers were in the streets supporting the war while the ships coming back were undermining their jobs. Made perfect sense

I have been a candidate three time for the LP and in the last campaign in 1986 I ran for state legislature and as I recall received about 18% of the vote, which I understood to be something of a record for a Libertarian in a two way race. I could be terribly wrong an apologize if I am, but I seem to recall numbers something like that.

With that said I realized that one of our weakest areas was in candidate support. We have little in the way of literature to support the candidates whereas about 15 years ago we had much more. Unfortunately when I write the LNC about this issue I get few replies and nothing much has happened to give me any indication that things might improve.

Wayne you are on the LNC. What are you going to do to improve the literature selection and up date the website?

@20 American industrial production is larger than ever. On 2/3 the number of workers needed a decade ago.

Barr at least went through the motions of joining the party reasonably in advance and pretending to be sufficiently interested in party affairs to arrange to be on the LNC. He then turned around and endorsed the most recent Republican flash in the pan, at least in Iowa.

Johnson is simply going to jump a few weeks before the New Hampshire primary. He continues to support — video of his New Hampshire appearance is out there — military tribunals.

As a former member of the New York Conservative Party — before there was a Libertarian Party, and before the Buckleys went off the cliff on the abortion issue — I will observe that the assertion “After one wins- like James Buckley- the dam will break.” does not for the Conservative Party resemble reality. After Buckley — the candidate of Richard Nixon against Jacob Javits — they became instead a Republican front for people who were to the Republican line as Superman is to Kryptonite (DO NOT TOUCH), but would vote for the candidate if they did not have to vote for the line, and in some cases were a vote siphon to split the conservative and Republican vote. The Conservatives did not become a major party in New York. The Conservative Party model is a model for failure.

22 gp, but, as for the arc of Barr 08 vs. Johnson ’12, neither trouble me. Barr’d left Congress, was chillin’, got interested in the LP, got on NatCom, and kind was convinced to run in the wake of the Paul 08 environment. Johnson joined the LP in the 90s, decided it wasn’t electorally viable, got elected as a R, did a good job, chilled for a decade, decided to run for prez to win. That hasn’t worked out, so now it’s about delivering a message.

The LP is not a club with initiation rituals and time-in-service pecking orders.

George @ 22 I am aware of the size of our industrial production and that in downturns management often lays people off but also improves methods of manufacturing so that they do not need to hire the same numbers to make the same goods as the market improves. Lots of nuances to this issue.

@ 15 Good job ! You truly have came a long way since switching to the LP.

Actually, he hasn’t.

Root’s stated views @ 7 are pretty much what he said in his 2009 book. And during his 2008 campaign.

Of course, Root often contradicts himself. He waffles, so you may well have read differing views from Root on those subjects over the years.

But he’s never waffled on Israel. Root’s been a consistent supporter of aid to Israel. His support for “a massive reduction in foreign aid” (a quote from 2008), as always, left out Israel. His focus is always on “rich” nations in Europe and Asia, and Arab “enemies,” but never Israel.

Not now, nor in any foreseeable future. At best, vague hints of less money for Israel at some far future, indeterminate date…

Robert, thanks for your comments, I think Gary Johnson will be a good candidate for us. Having a former congressman and then a former governor run for our nomination moves the party along in a positive direction. And while Barr was a disappointment, Johnson has a track record that I believe will please most Libertarian as well as libertarian leaning voters.

@29 I wrote “when he switched”. In 2007 I would refer to him in posts as WW3 etc. Root has come a LOOOOONNNGGGG way on foreign affairs (IMO). Everyone must remember Root is a Jew, Cohen is a Jew, hey even paulie is a Jew. They must have a very personal feeling for Israel and their fellow Jews everywhere, just as African-Americans have a fellow kindred spirit having ancestors who suffered at a certain time in history. Perhaps someday Root and others will call for an end to ALL foreign aid (except for voluntary private aid of course) everywhere including Israel. Until then they won’t be 100/100 Ls but they can still land in the correct quad of the Nolan Chart.

A big Tent is truly the only way the LP will ever be able to get things changed. Get’em in, then EDUCATE them fully !!! The major problem as I see it is not enough are being brought in from the ANTI-WAR(s) left side of the L quad of the Nolan Chart to “balance” the LP. Anti-tax former R’s are in most leadership positions and frankly they don’t seem to be tolerant toward opening the BIG tent’s doors on the left side.

@30 If GJ is to please “most” LP members is yet to be seen. Is he willing to change some of his stances to more conform to the LP platform or not ? If not, should he head the ticket? Again, money talk$ in politics. How much money would GJ be able to raise as the LP nom.? I’m a little shocked Wayne Root isn’t noting this problem for GJ.

A “DRAFT” Ron Paul (who already ha$ the ca$h and media) make$ more $en$e to me. How bout you guys?!? He CAN be nominated in absentia. When he finally loses the RP nom he can just keep spreading his ideas until Nov. as the LP nominee. The CP may be considering this move. The LP membership (not just leadership) should be thinking about this historical effort before the CP does it. Dr.Paul is NOT anti-Israel, he is anti-World War III. (A recent report shows Paul has received more contribution money from current military members than ALL others candidates combined including Obama).

I support Gary Johnson for the Libertarian nomination because he is for less government, lower taxes and has a proven record on the issue.

I support his campaign because he has been an outspoken supporter of leglizing marijuana, and campaigned for Proposition 19 in California, which was also endorsed by Rep. Ron Paul.

Gary Johnson opposed the Iraq War and calls for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan.

I also think a candidate who will point out that Israel is our friend – as Ron Paul does – is also a good thing.

Ron Paul has called for America to stop supplying weapons and military hardware to the enemies of Israel – including Saudi Arabia, the favored Middle East nation of the Reagan and Bush administrations. I hope Gary Johnson can articulate a similar position.

American trade with Israel is important and Libertarians should support continuation of that trade. Israel has a strong economy and has not received development aid from the US government for some years. So if Gary Johnson reiterates that Israel is our friend and trading partner, there is no reason to fear we will be drawn into a war to defend Israel. Most Israelis don’t want that in any case.

36 gb, well stated. That’s probably the best answer. However, I can imagine the follow-up questions probing a bit deeper: Would you use military force to protect Israel? Preemptive force? Would you continue foreign (military) aid for Israel?

I’m not sure whether GJ takes RP’s position that all foreign aid should end immediately.

“So is this legit? Last week, IPR was gushing that Gary Johnson was going to announce that he was running as a Libertarian. At least there are names this time out but right now I have little faith in this site on Johnson.”

Here at IPR we’ve broken major stories time and time again with reasonable accuracy. Certainly much more accuracy than most political blogs and more than many newspapers. This is the first time a breaking news story about a predicted event did not come to pass. With that said–it will come to pass, it just didn’t come to pass on the date we said it would. Numerous sources said that was the date and we took them at their word.

What I think happened is that once the news was published, Johnson’s campaign decided to push the announcement back in order to a.) get free media and b.) get people talking about it c.) test the waters, both with his current supporters, with the media, and with future supporters in the LP. An inside source has confirmed this is essentially what has happened. I won’t print that name, but it’s a reliable source. I learned my lesson though–unless someone permits me to print their name, don’t print the article.

I suspect Johnson will stump with delegates later. For now, he’s just contacting leadership. Makes plenty of sense.

It’s up to him how to pursue the nomination. I’m just noting that candidates don’t get a coronation from the leadership in the LP. If he focuses too much on getting LNC members behind him, he risks being seen as following the same path as Barr in trying to buffalo his way into the nod. Barr left a bad taste in the mouth of the rank and file, so he would be well advised to take a different approach.

Maybe he will take that different approach once he decides which nomination he’s going to run for. At this point, he’s been publicly mulling it over for more than a month.

40 ns: …he risks being seen as following the same path as Barr in trying to buffalo his way into the nod.

me: Interesting how perception and selective memories work. As I recall it, Barr got in VERY late, well after most state LP conventions. I guess maybe someone should reconstruct the timeline if it’s all that interesting and relevant to the here and now.

Still, “buffaloed”? My recollection is that the LM was transfixed with the RP candidacy. Somehow or other, the guy got SOME traction, even people marching for him shouting in a kind of scary way “Ron Paul,” throwing snowballs at Hannity, pissing off Guiliani. After the transfixing petered out in the wake of NewsletterGate, it seemed there was a certain L energy that needed to be assumed. Barr stepped up to do so. He fumbled it during the scrum.

And for this, some seem to have their daggers out for GJ, a different person in different times.

Bob Barr is a convenient punching bag for libertarians. I admit I had a hard time campaigning for him because his record was so at variance with his new found libertarian positions.

In his defence, I don’t think he wanted to run for President, which explains the late start. I think several people probably lobbied him and convinced him that if he ran it would help build the Libertarian Party.

I don’t defend his support for Gingrich, but it is probably more a reflection of a long personal association with Gingrich in Georgia Republican politics rather than an agreement with whatever Gingrich might stand for.

@Robert: Were you a delegate to the convention in Denver and/or did you pay attention the campaign for the nomination prior to the Denver convention? If not, I’ll trust my recollection of how Barr’s campaign played out for the delegates over yours.

The fact remains that Barr is the most recent LP Presidential candidate recruited from outside the party (before that, you have to go back to Paul ’88). So any Johnson campaign for the nomination will be seen through that lens.

Creating an effective contrast would be in Johnson’s best interest. He still has time to do that, but he also has time to screw it up. My comments are free advice and worth every penny that Johnson (or his advisers) paid for them.

I have no problem with this, and I think it’s good that Root is playing a role in recruiting candidates and building the party rather than just using the party for his own campaigns. I think Johnson is much better than Barr, and I don’t think he deserves to be viewed negatively because of Barr or any beliefs that Root has.

I’m much more radical than any of those guys mentioned and I’m happy to have them as fellow Libertarians. The LP has been recruiting and praising Johnson for a long time, way before Root was involved. Also, I prefer him to Paul, but that has nothing to do with the “Israel” issue or any of the minor disagreements mentioned.

My ancestry is about 80% Jewish. My original Soviet identity papers identified me as a Jew by nationality. My parents and grandparents did not practice any religion at the time of my birth or early childhood. The last generation of my family to practice any religion was the generation before my grandparents, and those were all dead before I was born. Different ones of those practiced Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, and Siberian Shamanism (I’m also part Russian and Native Siberian among other things).

After immigrating to the US I did attend Jewish as well as government schools. At various times in my life I have attended Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, New Age Spiritualist and Native American religious services. It’s been years since I have been at any of them. My parents now attend Jewish services infrequently, mostly for social reasons. My father is actually a deist in his beliefs. My mother claims to believe in the Jewish religion, but is far from observant. My own beliefs are an ecumenical form of religion/spirituality.

They must have a very personal feeling for Israel and their fellow Jews everywhere,

I don’t support US government aid to the Israeli government or any other foreign government. I think that the Israeli government is relatively better than others around them, and probably less autocratic than ours would be if we lived on a tiny sliver of land surrounded by a much larger number of hostile nations. However, it is far from an ideal government and not one I would want to live under. I’m glad my parents decided to move to the US rather than Israel, as they had originally intended to do when we left Russia. My uncle who was a fervent Zionist in Russia moved to Israel, hated it, and moved again to the US.

The major problem as I see it is not enough are being brought in from the ANTI-WAR(s) left side of the L quad of the Nolan Chart to “balance” the LP. Anti-tax former R’s are in most leadership positions and frankly they don’t seem to be tolerant toward opening the BIG tent’s doors on the left side.

I agree.

If GJ is to please “most” LP members is yet to be seen. Is he willing to change some of his stances to more conform to the LP platform or not ?

I don’t think he has to. I believe he will be able to get the nomination without having to change any of his views. I wish he would change his mind on a few things, but I don’t believe he will and I don’t believe it will cost him the nomination unless Ron Paul wants it. If Ventura wants it it could be competitive.

A “DRAFT” Ron Paul (who already ha$ the ca$h and media) make$ more $en$e to me. How bout you guys?!? He CAN be nominated in absentia.

I oppose drafting anyone who does not express interest in the nomination or who does not take the time to show up, even if it is Ron Paul. If I am a delegate I will not vote for anyone who does not show up in person and say they want the nomination, regardless of who they are.

But he’s never waffled on Israel. Root’s been a consistent supporter of aid to Israel. His support for “a massive reduction in foreign aid” (a quote from 2008), as always, left out Israel. His focus is always on “rich” nations in Europe and Asia, and Arab “enemies,” but never Israel…. Not now, nor in any foreseeable future. At best, vague hints of less money for Israel at some far future, indeterminate date…

Well, I have never heard you (assuming you’re GP), Moore, or a number of other people who are obsessed about Israel, talk about any aid recipients OTHER THAN Israel. Were you to be judged by your own standard you set above, the following could be said about you:

But he’s never waffled on Israel. Phillies [or whoever you are] has been a consistent supporter of aid to every nation except Israel. His support for “a massive reduction in aid to Israel”, as always, left out other major recipients such as Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, South Korea, Russia, and China. His focus is always on the “rich” nation of Israel, but never any of the rich — or poor — nations everywhere else…. Not now, nor in any foreseeable future. At best, vague hints of less money for the other +- 178 recipients of US aid at some far future, indeterminate date…

Every time I hear one of you obsessing over Israel, and attempt to persuade you to stop being a one-trick pony and instead call for ending all aid to all nations, you try to tell me I’m an “Israel firster”, among other epithets. Sure, I want to end all aid to Israel. But I will only say it within the context of ending all foreign aid altogether, because that is the only proper position for a real libertarian to take. I don’t want the LP to start sounding like a bunch of wannabe neo-nazis. There are already plenty of leftists screeching mindlessly about ending aid to Israel while turning a deaf ear to the victims of all the other tyrannical regimes to which we send aid — libertarians don’t need to get on that train.

Unlike some, I am not prejudiced for or against one country or another.

W.A.R. is quoted above as saying about Johnson, “A Libertarian in every way…yet still a huge supporter of Israel.”

Again, I fail to understand what “supporting Israel” has to do with being a libertarian, or is a qualification for someone to be a supportable presidential candidate.

If W.A.R. MEANS that Johnson would funnel foreign welfare money to Israel (from American taxpayer’s pockets), then it DIS-qualifies someone to be a good libertarian (or even a good “fiscal conservative”, for that matter) candidate.

In fact Libertarians should oppose US government to other countries, but all too often people harp on Israel without mentioning the many other countries that get US aid. Pakistan provided sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden, and their aid package has increased in recent years as part of the “War On Terror.”

I stopped working for antiwar.com because one of the columnists continually made charges about Israel’s government being oppressive, when the entire Middle East is filled with more oppressive governments.

The few Libertarians who constantly criticize Israel as a recipient of foreign aid are not doing so – I believe – because they are anti-semitic. Views which single out Israel for condemnation are widespread in left-wing and antiwar circles these days, and libertarians began to adopt similar rhetoric back when Murray Rothbard was attempting to appeal to the New Left.

Add in that Gary Johnson’s fervent support for the mis-named, so-called “Fair Tax (HR 25), this makes him wholly unfit to represent libertarianism and the LP.

Here in Tampa, I heard him say about this tax proposal (on the local news), ” . . . it is as the name implies . . . its fair”. So, taxing consumption is fair, but taxing productivity is not? IMHO, neither are “fair”, nor libertarian.

So, Johnson “supports” Israel, and supports (allegedly) “fair” consumption taxation . . . WHEN did those positions become “libertarian”, and thus adhere to the non-initiation of force?

More W.A.R. disinformation; “Since I’ve been heavily recruiting Gary Johnson to LP for weeks” . . . it has been reported to me, after exhaustive research by one or more un-named LP “officials”, that Gary Johnson had signed the “pledge” years ago.

“Johnson “supports” Israel, and supports (allegedly) “fair” consumption taxation . . . WHEN did those positions become “libertarian”, and thus adhere to the non-initiation of force?”
That’s easy… those became “Libertarian” positions when the de facto spokesman said they were… after all, how many times were you on the radio last week?

I did receive one of the calls from Mr. Johnson. I 100% support his run for nomination. I may or may not vote for him but I love choice. I love the free market of ideas . I believe the more choices the better.I also believe he will increase the media coverage of the LP. As far how hard core he is I can say one thing all most every state that has ran candidates the last 6 years have ran a candidate a lot less Libertarian then Gary Johnson. I believe he would do quite well on the Nolan chart. He has not earned my vote right now someone else has but that could change depending on his campaign and his message.

I received a call from Governor Johnson this evening. It was obviously a courtesy call to LNC members in advance of any potential announcement.

My impression was that he is quite convinced that he will need to campaign to our delegates, which means a lot of travel to conventions and other events between now and May. But this is normal LP campaigning, so I don’t see anything unusual in it.

I did not get the impression that he felt that just talking to LNC members gets him the nomination.

If he seeks our nomination, the questions that Steve LaBianca and others have asked about some of his positions will have to be answered. If his answers satisfy the convention delegates then he will probably be a contender for the nomination. If they do not, then the selection process may be lengthy.

But who will still be in the race in May?

My bet is that it will be Gary Johnson, R Lee Wrights and Roger Gary. My opinion is that Mr Harris is flaming out fast, Mr Person blew it with the attempted bribe to delegates, and Mr Still is…well his campaign appears to be stillborn.

Mr Gary and Mr Wrights are in it for the long-haul. Mr Wrights has built a much more solid campaign staff than Mr Gary, but my impression of Mr Gary is that he will see it through to the end. From what I’ve seen, he does not have a huge staff yet, but it is still early. He is a likable alternate choice for a lot of people who support other candidates, which we know from past experience can win you the nomination — as long as you have at least a small base of first round supporters.

Governor Johnson will also be in it to the end, assuming of course that he makes an announcement that he is changing parties.

Machine organization goes to Mr Wrights at this point in time, which he’ll need if Governor Johnson gets in the race.

But I did have to say “One Person out one person in.” Person is clearly out. There is no question about that. So is Johnson in?

@Stewart: I don’t doubt that Johnson will travel around to campaign if he switches parties in time. I just hope he knows how long a row he has to hoe.

Given the lack of respect he’s gotten from GOP leadership, it’s understandable that he’d want to talk to the LP leadership before seeking our nomination.

I think it’s too early to stick a fork in Harris, but your assessment of Still and Person seems sensible. I also wonder if Gary stays in to the convention; I don’t see any appreciable support for him yet.

My position on foreign aid has consistently been that I support ending all foreign aid, other than catastrophic disaster relief — the Indian Ocean tsunami, for example — the former because I oppose foreign aid, the latter because the American people will insist on aiding neighbors overwhelmed by catastrophe.

The best foreign aid the American people can privately give is to willingly and voluntarily buy products of foreign nations made with free –as opposed to slave — labor. For example, much of Ten Thousand Villages.

The few Libertarians who constantly criticize Israel as a recipient of foreign aid are not doing so – I believe – because they are anti-semitic.

I used to be with you on that, Gene; but recent experience makes me think otherwise of the individuals with whom I have repeatedly had these discussions.

I know a real, self-identified neo-n (more than one actually, but I had to work with this one fellow at the same employer for over a year, and we had more than a few discussions about current events). He would launch into anti-Israel diatribes at every opportunity — just like some libertarians I know. He spoke often of the need to “cut off Israel” — just like some libertarians I know. And he never, ever mentioned the tyrannical Muslim regimes that surround Israel and who also get US aid — just like some libertarians I know. I asked him once whether he thought the Muslims would be justified in driving the Jews into the sea, and without any hesitation, he said “yes”. I have put that question to the above-mentioned libertarians before, and they have yet to answer in the negative.

At some point, something becomes obvious.

I’m sorry, but Phillies, Moore, and others have an obsession about Israel. When they start lathering about it, what they say sounds exactly like my neo-N coworker.

One-sided rhetoric against a minority cheapens the life of the targeted minority. If enough citizens dehumanize and demean that minority, they end up as fodder for gas chambers or machetes.

If one wishes to not have the odor of bigotry, the simplest way to accomplish that is to eschew obsessing over the one and instead speak against injustice of the many — in a consistent manner that suggests no favoritism.

I am not #29 but here goes Montoni implying I am an antiSemite anyhow.

Then I apologize for associating you with that comment. However, 1) you have said strikingly similar things in the past; and 2) perhaps you should reconsider your habit of signing your comments with pseudonyms.

My position on foreign aid has consistently been that I support ending all foreign aid…

Excellent. Then make that your default position in the future instead of singling out one recipient for bonus criticism.

… other than catastrophic disaster relief — the Indian Ocean tsunami, for example — the former because I oppose foreign aid, the latter because the American people will insist on aiding neighbors overwhelmed by catastrophe.

Ah, another one of those famous Phillies off-the-reservation wanderings.

You’re more than welcome to ship your cash over to whatever nations / people you wish. Stay the hell out of my pocket, however.

The best foreign aid the American people can privately give is to willingly and voluntarily buy products of foreign nations made with free –as opposed to slave ­ labor. For example, much of Ten Thousand Villages.

If it’s “trade” it ain’t “aid”. Just “trade”.

There is private aid, as well. In fact Americans send so much of their cash overseas voluntarily the amounts actually compare with federal government aid.

@69 ACtually, I would have significant reservations about the quality of the advice Johnson is likely to get from calling LNC members. There is a simple test, namely at some point you may or may not hear that he is calling state chairs, blog editors, etc.

The most fiscally conservative governor in America. Mr. Veto. Never allowed a spending or tax increase in 8 years as Governor.

Simpatico with me on almost every issue.

A Libertarian in every way…yet still a huge supporter of Israel.

The perfect LP candidate.

I’ll be going “all in” to help Gary.”

These comments make me want to barf.

The Libertarian Party needs a candidate that wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing. The Libertarian Party needs a candidate that supports jury nullification and who favors pardoning people who’ve been convicted on vitimless “crimes”. The Libertarian Party needs a candidate who supports a non-interventionist foreign policy and who understands that the “War on Terror” is a sham.

The Libertarian Party does NOT need another Republican Lite masquerading as a Libertarian. Did Libertarians not learn anything from the disaster that was the Bob Barr campaign.

“I support his campaign because he has been an outspoken supporter of leglizing marijuana,”

Yeah, he’s such a “huge supporter” of legalizing marijuana that he did not pardon one person who was convicted under marijuana laws while he was Governor of New Mexico, and he defended not pardoning anyone convicted for victimless crimes during his current campaign, saying that the proper thing to do is to work to get the law changed (an extremely weak answer in my opinion).

Yeah, if you want a Republican Lite that doesn’t have any balls then Gary Johnson is your man.

Watch the same fools line up behind Gary Johnson with their panties all wet just like they did for Bob Barr. I think that it is clearly apparent now that Bob Barr is a despicable, opportunistic, backstabbing slimeball and is NOT a libertarian. That’s right, because of these people the Libertarian Party had a NON-libertarian as its standard bearer in the last election. Because of these people the best opportunity that this party has ever had to get ahead got flushed down the toilet.

Are we going to repeat this same mistake by nominating Gary “FairTax” Johnson? It wouldn’t suprise me, especially given the weak field of misfits, losers, and nobodies that are seeking the LP nomination right now.

“I oppose drafting anyone who does not express interest in the nomination or who does not take the time to show up, even if it is Ron Paul. If I am a delegate I will not vote for anyone who does not show up in person and say they want the nomination, regardless of who they are.”

I’d say the same thing under normal circumstances, however, if the choices are Republican Lite Gary “FairTax” Johnson and the current group of misfits, losers, and nobodies, then I’d vote for Ron Paul even if he doesn’t show up or want the nomination. Heck, None of the Above is probably a better choice than most of these people.

Add in that Gary Johnson’s fervent support for the mis-named, so-called Fair Tax (HR 25), this makes him wholly unfit to represent libertarianism and the LP.”

Amen!

“Here in Tampa, I heard him say about this tax proposal (on the local news), ‘. . . it is as the name implies . . . its fair’. So, taxing consumption is fair, but taxing productivity is not? IMHO, neither are ‘fair’, nor libertarian.”

There’s no such thing as a fair tax. Even the name of this badly flawed plan is a lie.

“So, Johnson ‘supports’ Israel, and supports (allegedly) ‘fair’ consumption taxation . . . WHEN did those positions become ‘libertarian’, and thus adhere to the non-initiation of force?”

These positions don’t have a damn thing to do with being a libertarian. If anything, they are anti-libertarian positions.

49 ns, no, I was unable to attend Denver, but, yes, I was paying attention pre-convention.

ns: The fact remains that Barr is the most recent LP Presidential candidate recruited from outside the party (before that, you have to go back to Paul ’88). So any Johnson campaign for the nomination will be seen through that lens.

me: I challenge your “fact.” Barr was in fact a member of the LP for some time prior to his announcing for the nomination. That lens you are looking through needs some cleaning.

But, yes, Paul, Barr, and – if he gets the nomination – Johnson could certainly be viewed as similar candidates in the LP’s history. All elected to high office. All as Rs.

I would say that the word “libertarian” and RP’s LP candidacy in ’88 have gotten more “gross impressions” in the media these past 6 months due to RP’s current campaign for president than the aggregate gross impressions for the word “libertarian” since 1970.

In that sense, RP ’88 was a roaring success, far more successful than Clark ’80. RP ’88 led to RP ’12.

The experiment continued in 08, with – so far – disappointing results. GJ ’12 might work out better than BB 08, and, given time, far better than RP 88.

Then again, it might not. I’d say prospects are pretty good, in that GJ is more reflexively L (i.e., in the mainstream of L thought) than BB was. GJ is less technocratic and lawyerly than BB on TV, which is a plus and a minus, as BB was a crisper-yet-duller speaker, IMO. GJ needs some coaching, though, as his propensity to meander in both his words and, even more importantly, his eyes, lessens his effectiveness on camera.

But, yes, if one has an irreconcilable problem with a former R running as a L, than GJ as the nominee will be an utter failure, no matter what he does, next year and in the future.

Some have suggested they would accept a former R like GJ as a candidate if they spent a (an unspecified) period of ideological penance in the LP before running for office. In theory, that’s not unreasonable, but in practice it seems rigid and unrealistic. Politics is an opportunistic game, and candidates are driven by a certain sense of urgency. Putting oneself “out there” like they do takes a lot of courage, and once the urgency and courage wane, they are likely to return to private life for quite some time.

Strike while the iron is hot. Take the risk. GJ 2012, L, looking awfully interesting to me, although Paul/Johnson remains way more interesting….

@ 81 and 82.
Then find a spokesperson to has your views or step up and be the de-facto “spokesperson” for the LP! Root is the so-called “spokesperson” because he out works most others in this category. If we believe in free-market principles and capitalism, then we should understand this. Businesses that outperform the competition will many times win. Live with it or go find a socialist or communist country. Even then, they have an elite class of leaders. Even North Korea– the leaders eat far better than the rest of those poor slobs.

“I would say that the word ‘libertarian’ and RP’s LP candidacy in ’88 have gotten more ‘gross impressions’ in the media these past 6 months due to RP’s current campaign for president than the aggregate gross impressions for the word ‘libertarian’ since 1970.”

And I would say “congratulations! It’s always nice to hear that there’s a new supply of LSD circulating!”

Thanks to Wayne Root, it appears the LP has reached the latest fork in the road – go one way and try to be a political party that moderates its radical solutions to issues that non-libertarians care greatly about, or go the other way and possibly remain a pure debating club that macho-flashes all unbelievers and never achieves anything more than assuring certain people stay big frogs in a mostly dried up pond.
I guess we’ll learn in Las Vegas which fork the delegates are taking should Gary Johnson show up and seek the nomination.

Didn’t we already decide that in 2006, when the platform got dumped, or in 2008, when we nominated (former?) drug warrior and CIA employee – and future Newt Gingrich endorser – Bob Barr for president?

After that, what self-respecting “pure debate club” libertarians could possibly continue to associate with the LP?

It is, or at least should be, quite obvious to one and all now that we have for better or worse pitched our big tent wide open for all clowns, elephants and fire and brimstone preachers – come Murkowski, come Johnson, come Barr, come Bachmann.

Tie your shoes libertarians, they could all stand behind our platform on its shifting sands now.

As I posted months ago ENDING all foreign aid is a WINNER and all LP candidates should ride with it (even down to city council-lol) !!! Anytime 3 of 4 people agree with you in a campaign proposal you stick with it.

Some people are still claiming that Barr got “more media coverage than all past LP presidential nominees combined,” when in fact he got a fraction of the real coverage (i.e. excluding one-line “also on the ballot …”) that Harry Browne alone achieved (fewer TV interviews and a tiny fraction of the number of radio interviews).

You left yourself some wiggle room there with the “gross impressions” thing.

If you had said “in any ten-year period with the possible exception of 2000-2010,” I’d probably have bought it easily.

One thing not mentioned in the comments section is: this must mean W.A.R. is OUT of the ’12 LP POTUS nomination race. Pleasing to some, not to others. Hopefully this will leave him more time for his very important position on LNCC.

@54 paulie, “I oppose drafting anyone who does not express interest in the nomination or who does not take the time to show up, even if it is Ron Paul. If I am a delegate I will not vote for anyone who does not show up in person and say they want the nomination, regardless of who they are.”

— With the new rules the Rs nom process will take longer to decide. RP will be more of a factor this cycle. If it will be decided by May, I don’t know. Working behind the scenes a draft could be set-up whereas RP could continue to seek the R nom receiving millions of $ worth of FREE media . This is his last hurrah, he certainly might be interested in and open to “playing” the game all the way to Nov. The LP can place him as their nominee and it will be his ticket to the “finals” in Nov. when it really counts. He may not be able to give an acceptance speech at the LP convention heard by a few people in the hall and on C-SPAN if it would keep him from speaking to millions on network TV at the R convention. Play politics, where Paul doesn’t have to lie to anyone, but can say he didn’t promote the LP draft and cannot stop them (the LP) from nominating him. He can then continue his message within the R Party until (if) he loses their convention vote. Then he can continue to Nov. atop the LP ticket. The LP would be foolish to pass up taking advantage of the million$ the RP campaign has generated. We all know that the vast majority of these fund$ have come from l(L)ibertarians. The LP should (must) build upon this campaign not squander this great opportunity.

@91 Ventura has only named Ron Paul as someone he would return to politics with on a POTUS ticket. He didn’t say he would be VP btw, but I see Paul with million$ of dollar$ currently campaigning and Ventura living somewhere in Mexico part time. So I say Paul/Ventura. A Johnson/Ventura or JV/GJ would be exciting too. Two former Gov’s. heading the LP ticket would be almost impossible to beat as far as “qualifications” to be POTUS!

I understand many if not most don’t like things about Paul, Johnson and Ventura. I am the same way, however I look at it as a MAJOR opportunity to build the Party to actual significance in fed., state and local politics.

If the breakthrough ever comes, libertarianism could actually rule the day AGAIN in America. Most must agree, early America and the U.S. was a more libertarian nation (excluding slavery) than any that exist today. Down deep in most everyone (that I know anyway) is a desire for PEACE over war, FREEDOM over slavery, Responsibility over dependency, Work over welfare, small gov’t over big gov’t, etc.

The task would still be enormous. The media would still be negative, but they couldn’t ignore the LP as they have in the past (except for the five minutes, so they could deny a claim of NO coverage) . A ticket of RP with GJ or JV might even raise enough money to run ads summer and fall which would equal millions of votes. Down ticket candidates and local LP officers and members would need to help bring in new members building their local org and teach the new members the finer points of the platform.

The needed goal is to build a real political Party that can compete from 2012 forward. Agreeing on all points ? No way, but working together on the points in which we agree !

95 tk, certainly a decade of gross impressions is safer…and impressive! RP is really doing a great job media wise v 08, and anecdotally I notice they call him L or L leaning OFTEN, perhaps even most times.

One thing not mentioned in the comments section is: this must mean W.A.R. is OUT of the ’12 LP POTUS nomination race. Pleasing to some, not to others. Hopefully this will leave him more time for his very important position on LNCC.

I think Wayne will only run if Johnson (or someone else he finds acceptable) does not.

He may well do the VP thing again though.

With the new rules the Rs nom process will take longer to decide. RP will be more of a factor this cycle. If it will be decided by May, I don’t know. Working behind the scenes a draft could be set-up whereas RP could continue to seek the R nom receiving millions of $ worth of FREE media . This is his last hurrah, he certainly might be interested in and open to “playing” the game all the way to Nov. The LP can place him as their nominee and it will be his ticket to the “finals” in Nov. when it really counts. He may not be able to give an acceptance speech at the LP convention heard by a few people in the hall and on C-SPAN if it would keep him from speaking to millions on network TV at the R convention. Play politics, where Paul doesn’t have to lie to anyone, but can say he didn’t promote the LP draft and cannot stop them (the LP) from nominating him. He can then continue his message within the R Party until (if) he loses their convention vote. Then he can continue to Nov. atop the LP ticket. The LP would be foolish to pass up taking advantage of the million$ the RP campaign has generated. We all know that the vast majority of these fund$ have come from l(L)ibertarians. The LP should (must) build upon this campaign not squander this great opportunity.

Sorry. It’s a matter of principle for me. No unwilling candidates, and no delegate vote for anyone that does not ask for it. It’s not OK for Seidenberg to do it, and it’s not OK for us either.

I do believe the Republican race will be decided before the LP convention, though.

So I say Paul/Ventura. A Johnson/Ventura or JV/GJ would be exciting too. Two former Gov’s. heading the LP ticket would be almost impossible to beat as far as “qualifications” to be POTUS!

Agreed. Any of those combinations would make things interesting.

I understand many if not most don’t like things about Paul, Johnson and Ventura. I am the same way, however I look at it as a MAJOR opportunity to build the Party to actual significance in fed., state and local politics.

If there is list sharing by the campaign with the party, yes.

If the breakthrough ever comes, libertarianism could actually rule the day AGAIN in America. Most must agree, early America and the U.S. was a more libertarian nation (excluding slavery) than any that exist today.

Down deep in most everyone (that I know anyway) is a desire for PEACE over war, FREEDOM over slavery, Responsibility over dependency, Work over welfare, small gov’t over big gov’t, etc.

In may people it takes a back seat to the desire to rule others and/or be ruled by others.

The task would still be enormous. The media would still be negative, but they couldn’t ignore the LP as they have in the past (except for the five minutes, so they could deny a claim of NO coverage) . A ticket of RP with GJ or JV might even raise enough money to run ads summer and fall which would equal millions of votes.

Pat Buchanan in 2000 was not lacking in either media or money. It often translates into votes, but not always. Some of it will depend on what the campaign does with its money, what other alt tickets are running, and the state of the D/Roid race.

I have read many times on this site and the old TPW about “contact lists”. Why doesn’t the Party require this or at least someone ask each candidate their intention in regard to sharing their contacts with national, state and local at the forums BEFORE the voting takes place at the convention? Anyone not interested in helping the LP to grow at ALL levels should NEVER receive the POTUS nomination IMO.

While I’m pleased that such a site like IPR allows us to debate these issues, it sadly loaded with flamethrowers and litmus testers. It’s one reason I don’t check in too often, and rarely comment.

But I wanted to support and echo Wayne’s remarks, and thank him for using his skill and dedication to bring a quality candidate to the LP like Gary Johnson. I’ll be supporting him in his bid for the nomination.

I expect Ernie Hancock and John Jay Myers will target him as a traitor because he wears a suit, and rally the useless anarchist wingnuts to nominate their preferred crazy candidate at the convention in May.

I hope I can convince Wayne to pursue seeking VP with Gary heading up ticket. While Gary Johnson has the creds to answer critics, he’s not the powerful speaker that Wayne is.

A Johnson-Root ticket will drive interest in the LP, and will give us a powerful media opportunity we have not yet seen.

I have read many times on this site and the old TPW about “contact lists”. Why doesn’t the Party require this or at least someone ask each candidate their intention in regard to sharing their contacts with national, state and local at the forums BEFORE the voting takes place at the convention? Anyone not interested in helping the LP to grow at ALL levels should NEVER receive the POTUS nomination IMO.

I will not vote for any pre-nomination candidate who doesn’t have his act together well enough that I see inquiries coming in frequently as the result of that campaign.

And as I’ve pointed out, we have this one “celebrity” kind of guy boasting about all his media conquests — while new inquiries are NOT coming in as a result, and membership is still tanking.

I will not vote for a presidential candidate who 1) talks about winning as if it’s within the realm of possibility; and 2) doesn’t understand that the race is not about him, but about finding new libertarians.

re # 102 I expect Ernie Hancock and John Jay Myers will target him as a traitor because he wears a suit, and rally the useless anarchist wingnuts to nominate their preferred crazy candidate at the convention in May.

With the leadership skills exhibited in the comment above it is no wonder this outfit is falling apart at the seams. I hope the Johnson team isn’t reading this. It would be nice to have a group of people working together instead of being pulled apart, but it looks like the shredding has begun with Silvestri’s comments regardless of whom the chosen candidate will be.

I guess Silvestri has been reading that well known book Better Management Through Intimidation. It’s number one on the Idiot’s List

I could have lived without the negative comments from Mr. Silvestri @ 102, also, Jeez, Dude, most people here are pleased to have GJ come here, and neither JJM or Mr. Hancock has posted anything negative. Making friends, are you, Joe?

But I wanted to support and echo Wayne’s remarks, and thank him for using his skill and dedication to bring a quality candidate to the LP like Gary Johnson.

What a joke!!!

Wayne seems to have a knack for jumping in front of a parade and calling himself the leader. Newsflash: people have been marching in this direction for months.

Who is responsible for Johnson jumping to the LP? Well, most obviously it is the Republican establishment and the media for repeatedly locking him out of debates. But they just nudged him away from the Republican Party. The people who pointed him towards the Libertarian Party were his key advisers, volunteer activists, and donors.

Most prominently former LNC member Hardy Macia has donated a huge amount of his time to Johnson and has always been a LP supporter. Former LNC chair Bill Redpath personally collected 500 signatures for Johnson here in Virginia. Aaron Biterman was a huge organizer for Johnson online, and despite his recent leadership role in the Republican Liberty Caucus he steered Johnson to the LP when it was clear the Republicans weren’t going to let him get his message out. Laura Delhomme is my local LP affiliate chair and she also did website work for Gary Johnson. Former LNC member Jake Porter is Johnson’s state organizer in Iowa. Former LP staffer and Alabama chair Stephen Gordon is Johnson’s southern regional director. The list goes on and on. Practically all of Johnson’s on the ground volunteers came from the LP. And practically all of them are steering him to the LP. And where are Johnson’s donations coming from? Many of his donors are also LP members. (I donated a modest amount of money to his campaign myself, but unfortunately I have not had time to volunteer.)

Getting Johnson to run LP has been in the works behind the scenes for quite a while. I’ve been talking with many of the above people about Johnson jumping ship to the LP for months. (Just keeping myself in the loop.) LNC member Guy McLendon formed a Facebook group, sent out a survey to past delegates, and ran an advertisement in LP News — mostly paying out of pocket. Where was Wayne?

How many signatures did Wayne collect to get Johnson on the ballot? How much did he donate to the Johnson campaign? Has he done any local organizing for Johnson? I doubt it.

In the last year Wayne has not mentioned Johnson on Twitter once. On Facebook he mentioned Johnson only twice in the past year: on July 10 when he listed the other people speaking at the Conservative Leadership Conference and on September 24 when he complimented Johnson’s speech — accidentally referred to as “Rick Perry’s speech” at first.

Most of the people who did the actual work aren’t out there seeking credit for it. And that’s fine. But it really makes my blood boil to see a johnny-come-lately to this push act like he’s unilaterally responsible for recruitment. I respect the people I mentioned above too much to sit back and let Wayne (and his few relentless promoters) implicitly belittle all their hard work.

My prediction is Root won’t be nominated VP or elected to any LNC position this coming convention. He’s turned off far, far, far too many delegates.

3 reasons for that:
1. He has publicly declared he wants to re-define “libertarian” to be more conservative.
2. He takes credit for everything from the sun coming up in the morning to the Green Bay Packers winning a football game.
3. He can’t have a bowel movement without sending out a press release about it.

Johnson would be well advised to avoid Root. If Wayne continues to try to latch himself onto Johnson like a leech to cannibalize the campaign for his own media boast, he’s gonna have another thing coming at the national convention. I’m done pulling my punches. Game on.

My theory is that Wayne isn’t going to run for our Presidential candiacy because he knows he won’t win, and that would be difficult to explain to his Republican/Tea Party followers. He’s told them, of course, that he’s a leader of our party, so the loss would be humiliating. So, this Johnson thing is a good excuse not to run. He’s acting like he’s graciously handing the opportunity to Mr. Johnson, because Wayne’s businesses and family just need him too much right now.

Bear in mind that if Johnson gets the LP nomination, and performs well enough in polls, there is a slim slim slim chance that he and his running mate might end up in the debates. (Slim.) So the LP should give serious thought to who gets that second slot to go up on national television against Biden and [Rubio/Portman/Huckabee/Ryan].

• Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

• Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

• No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

I have read many times on this site and the old TPW about “contact lists”. Why doesn’t the Party require this or at least someone ask each candidate their intention in regard to sharing their contacts with national, state and local at the forums BEFORE the voting takes place at the convention? Anyone not interested in helping the LP to grow at ALL levels should NEVER receive the POTUS nomination IMO.

I am focusing on military kangaroo courts because they are totally unAmerican.

The Libertarian Party platform does not discuss military tribunals for something like the same reason it does not discuss slavery, namely the issue was completely settled by the Bill of Rights and the constitutional amendments since.

If someone had proposed at the 2000 convention that we needed a platform plank saying that people should be tried by juries rather than military kangaroo courts, they would have needed to struggle to make a case that the plank was as plausible as, say, the Lunar Lagrange point ownership plank. But in their struggle they would have been right.

Mind you, I am completely unsurprised that Johnson joins most of his fellow Republicans in opposing one of the most central sections of our constitution and bill of rights, because, after all, he is a Republican.

Supporters of FIJA may note that it is kind of difficult to Fully Inform a Jury when there is, like, no jury.

@124 “Under what scenario do you see Johnson as LP at 15% in the polls?”

(8^)) Really, really intensive use of LSD?

More seriously, you will have an effective Green candidate (Jill Stein, my best guess), a Constitution Party candidate (Peroutka??? any opinions here?), an Americans Elect candidate with some record and tons of cash, all in addition.

On the other hand, after the Republicans finish their use of the idea they stole from us and improved (circular firing squad, but adding one yard range and the use of WP grenades), they may have large numbers of activists looking for alternatives, all in preparation for 2014 and primarying out the Romney supporters.

I shall, however, say that if a Massachusetts Libertarian were to line up with some other campaign, with the intent in advance of identifying actual libertarians who can be drawn off, I would not complain if they were not a state committee member. An LNC member petitioning for a Republican is disgraceful, and that person should be suspended for cause. (Also, if the LNC has any brains, it will not be trusting that person with mission-critical activities like fundraising or ballot access.)

I didn’t write the headline…nor put out a press release. Actually I was dead silent. Never said a word about GJ until a few days ago.

But when GJ’s possible jump to LP was mentioned in IPR thread that I happened to see, I was thrilled and excited to mention that I’d traveled to Baltimore to share a dinner with him a month ago (we were both speaking at the same event)…and pushed hard to get him into the LP Presidential race.

As a matter of fact, long before that Baltimore dinner…GJ had been a guest on my radio show 4 or 5 times in a year…and each time I asked him both on and off the air if he’d be interested in jumping to LP and running for President…I kept mentioning it in a fun way to get his attention!

At the Conservative Leadership Conference in July (where we were both speaking), I also spent some quality time with GJ and reminded him of my desire to have him run for the LP Presidential nomination.

Would you define all of that as “recruiting a candidate”?

I would.

Yet I never mentioned it until I felt relatively certain he’d actually take the LP up on our offer.

And when I did mention it for the first time, I mentioned it casually in a thread at IPR to supposedly “friends of the LP.” Friends like you.

I didn’t put out press releases, or mention it in the media.

I thought it would excite and thrill LP activists at IPR to give them a hint at what was about to happen. Yes Chuck, I was heavily “involved” in GJ’s recruitment.

But I’m certain many others worked hard…rooted for it (excuse the pun), got petitions signed, etc.

And never did I suggest otherwise.

I do many behind the scenes things on behalf of the LP, liberty, and the the Tea Party, every day without mentioning them publicly. If I mention them in a thread at IPR among “friends of the LP” I don’t expect them to be denigrated. I mentioned it only to get Libertarians here excited and to give them a bit of an insider’s scoop before the real public announcement.

I had that insider’s scoop because I had personally been involved. And spoken personally on and off the air to my friend GJ.

I’ve only tried to further the cause of liberty and the LP for 5 years now.

As to my interests in running for President in 2012…I’ve said publicly on hundreds of radio stations and on TV as well…that my plan is to host radio and TV shows for the next 5 years and build a high profile platform and fan base…to use for a credible and winnable Libertarian Presidential run in 2016…

I’ve said that publicly perhaps 200+ times. You may not have heard them. Many of those interviews are available on my web site.

In each of these interviews, I’ve said my plans are aimed at 2016 unless the LP cannot find a quality candidate in 2012…and that’s precisely why I went out and pushed hard for GJ to join the LP and become that qualified, credible candidate with an impressive track record.

But I can tell you one thing for certain…if I wanted to run, I’d run. And I’d win. If I don’t run, it sure isn’t because I have any doubts about winning the nomination.

I became the LP Vice Presidential nominee in 2008 as a complete unknown and newcomer to the party. Didn’t know a soul. Had no track record. Yet I won the .P. nomination. And came darn close to beating out a 4-term Congressman who brought busloads of supporters to the convention…and did beat out a former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel.

Since then I have done 3000+ media interviews- in each case identified as a Libertarian…often as “Mr. Libertarian.”

I have worked day and night to become a known Libertarian brand name…and to win the respect of LP voters and convention delegates.

If the media regards me as the de facto spokesman of the LP it is because I have out-worrked, out-hustled and out-strategized all of my critics and opponents.

It’s a fact that I have become the hardest working ex-ccandidate in Lp history. No one has ever put out the energy and passion I have for this cause- in non election years. I dare anyone to disprove that statement.

Sorry Chuck…but as Mohammed Ali said…it aint bragging if you back it up and make it happen.

I made breakthroughs in the national mainstream media that even I did not expect.

I was elected to LNC as the #1 vote-getter in the country.

Since then I’ve worked so hard on LNC and LNCC, that I’ve risked and endangered my careers and livlihood. The time I sacrificed for LP was time…in a depression…that could have gone to my businesses, or my family.

And my time on LNC has been productive and successful by all measures.

You can respectfully disagree with me…but not one critic or opponent of mine can out-work, out-hustle, or out-sacrifice me.

More seriously, you will have an effective Green candidate (Jill Stein, my best guess), a Constitution Party candidate (Peroutka??? any opinions here?), an Americans Elect candidate with some record and tons of cash, all in addition.

Most importantly you misquote what I’ve said. I have never anywhere, at any time said I want to make the LP “more conservative.”

What I’ve said…and had both LP members and media misquote me…

Was that the only issues that mainstream voters care about during an economic crisis…and the worst depression since 1929…is economic issues. Issues #1 through #100 that matter to voters are jobs, jobs and more jobs.

And so I’ve argued that the LP should stress economic issues and our fiscally conservative solutions- just like the Tea Party.

And I’ve argued that I’m proven right by the remarkable results achieved by the Tea Party- by stressing ONLY fiscal conservative views and staying away from social issues that are much more divisive and unpopular with mainstream voters. As well as unfortunately unimportant to mainstream voters. That includes an issue near and dear to my heart- online gaming and online poker.

I rarely- if ever- mention it, and among about 500 commentaries I’ve recently written, not one involved online gaming- except to mention in passing as part of an economic plan that it could create tax revenues and jobs.

The LP is by its own definition- “fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.” That slogan was on our label for decades.

I am fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. That’s one reason I left the GOP to join the LP.

I merely stress the “fiscally conservative” part in the media and in talking to voters because thats the issues that are so important at this time in history.

And that’s exactly what I’ve said publicly to Libertarians…and to the national mainstream media. And if it ever came out differently…it was mangled by the media, not me.

I can think of one particular interview in a Nevada magazine cover story that I’m sure you are using to condemn me. That was a wonderful breakthrough for the LP- to have one of our personalities featured on the cover of a mainstream magazine dressed as George Washington, the father of our country. That breakthrough should be celebrated, not denigrated.

But in that interview the journalist mangled my comments. Did you or any Libertarian ever bother to ask me if the quote was accurate? I’d guess that 90% of the media interviews I’ve done misquote me…and most of them do it badly. They take notes…I talk fast…they write the story several days later. They get it wrong. They mangle comments.

the journalist asked if LP is so great, why does no one vote LP?

My answer is a good one. We have the correct answers to both economic and social issues. Freedom. Get government out of the boardroom and bedroom. But right now economic issues are what matter to voters. So we need to follow the mega-successful gameplan of the Tea Party and stress our fiscal conservatism. Thats what voters care about. Anything else diverts attention and confuses the message.

The reporter hard all that and wrote “Wayne wants to make the LP more conservative.”

That mistake by someone else has caused you and many left leaning Libertarians to hate me? To denigrate me? To put words in my mouth that I didn’t say?

All while I’m sacrificing day and night for the LP?

Chuck…does that explain sufficiently the miscommunication we seem to have?

Wayne @ 132: “That mistake by someone else has caused you and many left leaning Libertarians to hate me? To denigrate me? To put words in my mouth that I didn’t say?”

You are not being truthful, Wayne! You have gone out of your way to insult left-leaning Libertarians over and over again, which is the single reason I have such a problem with you. Just as you’re insulted that we’re “denigrating” your hard work, you call us anti-war activists and those of us who work on social issues, such as gay rights, “leftist-radicals”, as if we’re the worst type of vermin out there. I don’t get angry often, Wayne, but you’re deliberately lying about this!

You can’t just say or write whatever you want, then deny it or say we’ve misunderstood you or the media has represented you. Man up, Wayne, and take some responsibility for yourself!

Here is just one TV interview from about a year ago where I announce my plan to run in 2016 and spend the next 4 to 5 years building a platform and fan following that will enable me to run a credible and serious campaign as LP Presidential nominee …

Well DWP if you plan to seek the LP nom in ’16 you know one opponent for sure .

“Democrats can never get any sleep because they are afraid somebody somewhere is making too much money. Republicans can never get any sleep because they are afraid somebody somewhere is having too much fun.” – Anonymous -> http://www.lp.org/

@109 Slim slim slim slim slim. If somehow Johnson is the only major third candidate, or if somehow the rules get shifted so that a candidate polling under 15% gets invited, it could happen. It is highly unlikely.

Apparently, Jill’s comments really got to WAR, because he started misspelling words!

Johnson’s entry into the LP race will be very interesting. As I posted on another thread, the vetting process will be key. It will also be interesting to see whether he aligns himself with WAR, who as Chair of the LNCC, appears to hold the purse strings of the National LP. You can decide for yourself whether those are good things or not (Johnson’s aligning himself with WAR, and WAR holding the LP’s purse strings).

As for this statement: “Gary is the first of many elected or former elected officials – I hope- that we can convince to change parties- as I predicted in my book ‘The Conscience of a Libertarian,'” I believe that Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Bob Barr all preceded Gary Johnson in switching to the LP.

Regarding the statement that “I have never anywhere, at any time said I want to make the LP ‘more conservative,'” the “Reagan Libertarian” contradiction is enough to cast doubt on WAR’s intentions.

I don’t know how anyone can justify continuing foreign aid to any country, since it redistributes wealth away from working Americans and gives it to foreign governments who have not earned it.

All those media appearances? How often did WAR mention stopping Obama’s war on medical marijuana dispensaries? (BTW, more than half of Americans want to legalize marijuana now.) Did WAR mention the NDAA provisions for indefinite detention without trials? Repealing the “Patriot” Act? Ending warrantless wiretapping? How about the Palestinian people’s right to choose their own form of government, as stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence? How about the limited, one-time audit of the Federal Reserve that came out in July, which revealed that the Fed gave $16 TRILLION to lending institutions, and that more than half of that money went to FOREIGN companies? (Actually, I will be happy if WAR can link to some articles that prove me wrong here.)

One thing concerns me about all these media appearances. Does WAR really get all the media attention because he works so much harder than, say, Mark Hinkle, Wes Benedict, Lee Wrights, or the late David Nolan have? Or does the Mainstream Media maybe give him so much attention because he pushes a worldview – and a view of libertarianism – that they want the sheeple to believe? I strongly urge anyone who isn’t familiar with Murray Rothbard’s concept of the “Court Intellectuals” to read this essay, especially the section “How the State Preserves Itself”: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html.

I guess it’s easy to say, “This is a perfect conversation to have if you are home doing nothing to advance liberty, promote the LP, save the U.S. economy from socialism, or end the Nanny State.

“This is like watching soap operas all day- fascinating if you have nothing else to keep you busy.” But then, WAR wasn’t at our Region meeting earlier this month when Jill (who happens to be the chair of our region) hosted her friend Kate O’Brien, an ELECTED LIBERTARIAN, who actually serves in public office, giving us tips on how to get elected.

“I’m trying to get LP candidates elected. Try to bite off too much, and sound too radical or risky, and the result is that no one will elect us to do anything. That’s a pretty clear lesson of past 40 years. ” I’m really glad that Ron Paul didn’t take that advice. By staking out radical positions like “putting big government on a diet” (BEFORE California’s Prop 13, BTW) and auditing the Fed, these issues have become mainstream. THAT’s how we win: by shifting the debate.

I have to agree with a long-time activist and former California State Chair who said after a Los Angeles County LP meeting that our market segment is the RADICALS. If we allow our party to become “Republican Lite,” we will resign ourselves to insignificance. Why? because anyone we would attract with that strategy will just vote Republican in November. No, our strategy for success has to be attracting the politically homeless – that is, those who, like Thomas Paine, have a radical view of freedom – and shifting the debate in that direction.

Wayne @134 “I do not denigrate others until they say something nasty about me.”

Wayne, on several occasions I have refuted statements you’ve made, and you immediately label me as jealous, arrogant and/or bitter and claim that I’m only refuting your statement because you’re a hard worker and/or wealthy.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m happy for you that you make lots of money;. What I don’t like is that you run around claiming to represent the LP, while sounding like a Republican.

“A Johnson-Root ticket will drive interest in the LP, and will give us a powerful media opportunity we have not yet seen.”

This is the same line of BS that people said about the Barr-Root ticket. Where is the great success from that? The Barr campaign was a disaster from which the Libertarian Party has still not recovered.

One thing concerns me about all these media appearances. Does WAR really get all the media attention because he works so much harder than, say, Mark Hinkle, Wes Benedict, Lee Wrights, or the late David Nolan have? Or does the Mainstream Media maybe give him so much attention because he pushes a worldview – and a view of libertarianism – that they want the sheeple to believe?

Actually he gets much of the media coverage he does because he has a professional media consultant lining up interviews for him, as well as a scheduler.

You’ve jumped to conclusions that are incorrect. I’m shocked at such negative comments.

[My] time on LNC has been productive and successful by all measures. That deserves respect. Not vitriol.

I’m sorry about my incorrect conclusions. And I apologize if you found my comment personally hurtful.

I delete 90% of what I write on the Internet (emails, comments, etc.) before sending it and generally try to sit on writings for 24 hours and/or discuss things privately first. Posting that comment was a very marginal decision on my part, which can be explained (but not excused) by my stress submitting my students’ grades by the deadline. I’m embarrassed at how I conducted myself in that comment.

That said, I don’t regret the comment because it has opened an important dialogue here. I would not have known that the magazine story was a misquote if not for my comment and your response. I’m grateful to clarify these things well in advance of the convention — before I did something rash like distribute that article to the delegates.

Wayne Root wrote (@129):

The IPR headline says “Wayne Root INVOLVED in GJ recruitment.”

I’d traveled to Baltimore to share a dinner with him a month ago […] and pushed hard to get him into the LP Presidential race. […] GJ had been a guest on my radio show 4 or 5 times in a year…and each time I asked him both on and off the air if he’d be interested in jumping to LP and running for President. […] At the Conservative Leadership Conference in July [I] reminded him of my desire to have him run for the LP Presidential nomination.

Would you define all of that as “recruiting a candidate”?

Yes, I would describe at of that as contributing to the recruitment of a candidate. I was unaware of those things.

Even so, I believe others’ dedication to Gary Johnson’s Republican campaign and bending of his ear about the LP have been far more extensive — particularly Hardy Macia and some of the others I mentioned above.

Wayne Root wrote (@129):

But I’m certain many others worked hard. […] And never did I suggest otherwise.

I haven’t seen any direct statement from you that suggests otherwise.

Several of your more enthusiastic supporters did, such as the comment from Joe Silvestri that I was directly responding to (and quoted) in my comment.

I’ve now been made aware that those supporters don’t coordinate with you or represent you. It’s unfortunate that they paint you with a bad brush.

I realize it’s impossible to monitor what everyone (or even a few people) say about you. But when some people spread positive misleading information about you — such as conveying the impression that you were primarily responsible for Johnson’s recruitment — and you do not correct that misinformation, it will seem to some that you tacitly endorse that misinformation campaign.

I can’t say I have a good solution to that problem.

Wayne Root wrote (@129):

You can respectfully disagree with me…but not one critic or opponent of mine can out-work, out-hustle, or out-sacrifice me.

I agree.

Wayne Root wrote (@132):

One more miscommunication to clear up.

Most importantly you misquote what I’ve said. I have never anywhere, at any time said I want to make the LP “more conservative.”

I can think of one particular interview in a Nevada magazine cover story that I’m sure you are using to condemn me. […]

But in that interview the journalist mangled my comments. […] 90% of the media interviews I’ve done misquote me…and most of them do it badly. They take notes…I talk fast…they write the story several days later. They get it wrong. They mangle comments.

My answer [was] […] right now economic issues are what matter to voters. […]

The reporter hard all that and wrote “Wayne wants to make the LP more conservative.”

Chuck…does that explain sufficiently the miscommunication we seem to have?

Yes, in part.

I did not see a clarification of that interview contemporaneously. In fact I think this is the first I heard about Seven Magazine misquoting you.

I’d recommend clarifying that comment to a broader audience because I think most your detractors who have hitched onto that quote probably have not read your comment above.

Wayne Root wrote (@132):

What I’ve said…and had both LP members and media misquote me…

Was that the only issues that mainstream voters care about during an economic crisis…and the worst depression since 1929…is economic issues. Issues #1 through #100 that matter to voters are jobs, jobs and more jobs.

And so I’ve argued that the LP should stress economic issues and our fiscally conservative solutions- just like the Tea Party.

I don’t agree with that. You had been emphasizing economic issues before the recession and you’ll emphasize economic issues after the recession is over. The recession may be a justification for your emphasis, but it doesn’t seem to be your reason for that emphasis.

I believe in a big tent LP where people can have different strategies and don’t need to have 100% “pure” libertarian ideologies to be with us. Some of us may choose to emphasize the war, others gay rights; some guns, others immigration; some taxes, others marijuana legalization. I have no problem with Wayne Root emphasizing economic issues — even to the exclusion of other issues like the war, marijuana, etc. (though I know you do not actually avoid those issues). In fact, I tend to favor economic issues myself because that’s where my academic training is. But my problem with your approach is the word LP (“And so I’ve argued that the LP should stress economic issues and our fiscally conservative solutions”). When you take your preferred strategy and talking points and attempt to impose them on all Libertarians or on the organization rather than just yourself, we are no longer being big tent.

Additionally while I understand your sentiment that the time is ripe for economic issues, the fact is the time has also long been ripe for pushing issues like the wars, marijuana legalization, and gay marriage — all of which have public opinion heavily trending in a libertarian direction. I’d rather if libertarians were leaders in those movements than have us run to join the party on the eve of a new freedom’s passage into law.

The other problem with messaging heavily in one direction is that it makes recruiting reformed liberals harder and recruiting reformed conservatives easier, which slants the demographics of the LP more and more conservative over the years. It’s a positive feedback loop with no end in sight. I believe there are huge opportunities for recruiting from the left — the Ron Paul campaign’s outreach to the anti-war left is a great example of that.

Again I don’t expect Wayne Root to be the outreach guy to the left and I have no problem with you emphasizing whatever issues you want personally, but I am concerned about a coordinated organizational branding strategy that slants the LP too far right.

The list of issues on the LNCC’s website is heavily slanted towards economic issues. Too heavily in my mind, but that’s no big deal to me (I just won’t donate to the LNCC). There are many people (myself included) who are wary of electing those heavily involved with the LNCC to leadership positions in the LNC for fear that lp.org would then take a similar slant.

Wayne Root wrote (@132):

The LP is by its own definition- “fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.” That slogan was on our label for decades.

I haven’t been involved with the LP for decades; however, my understanding is that branding is relatively new. I’ve been told the LP used the phrase “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” for years and the “liberal” has only been morphed into “tolerant” at the urging of some relatively recently.

@102 …JPS
I want everyone to know this man was my mentor , and i love him for it. The 1st book he ever gave me was Mary Ruwarts healing our world….he used to call Freedom Fest – Fascist Fest and ironically it was me that convinced him to give Root a chance.

He used to champion the drug war , rail against police , talked about harry browne and LOVES Malcome X .and his passion while doing so was ridiculously high you couldnt help but stand with him.

he just wants results so bad for his tireless dedication , somewhere along the way he forgot some things…

i think time is too damn short to worry about the wingnuts and neocons w/in our own party. We need people from every side and we need them now.

wayne is spot on about 1 thing , he works the hardest and thats how hes become so prominent in the LP. Silvestri , same thing …he controls the NLP because he trys harder and prepares better than anyone else is willing to and noone should fault them for that,

but I think a perfect ticket would be a team with a person from each perspective….

of course evryone is so busy being right all the time theyd never work together , but I can imagine a LP ticket that appealed to both sides . where each person reaches out to the people they can school the best and both our “wings” finally help this truth we got take flight ( taken loosely from Kubby 08 post barr win)

divided we are conquered , RESPECT is what we need for eachother. Take a look out the window, we dont have time to change the laws thru partisan politics , we need to scream the message , loudly to everyone , right fucking now.

I would be pleased with a Wrights – Johnson ticket , Id even accept a Wrights Root ticket , and I really dont care for the man , but hes got skills .

me_ if you gain credibility at the cost of changing the world then what have you won . I too belive if we only put forward our non offensive positions and didnt talk about certain things we would be more successful and look more credible but we lose our purpose… which is –Truth to Power , not letting fear of ridicule back us down and standing firm in convictions .

WAR_All I care about is that LP candidates have a moderate, pragmatic position that doesn’t frighten or repel mainstream voters. That doesn’t seem radical, extreme, or risky. The issue of Israel has repelled mainstream voters towards the LP for 40 years.

me_ the mainstream never accomplished anything in the realm of accomplishing drastic change .Wayne , we ARE radical and extreme and thats ok . you dont change the devil by appealing to his senses the devil changes you.

and as for Israel , I think they have a fantastic army , tons of money and can defend themselves. I also dont think they are 100% the nice guys and shouldnt be called out on when they fuck up. Everyone should be called out when they are wrong , even Israel , even if it loses us votes…

lest you forget I took my dear fried , the founder of our Party to task when he suggested people leave bad reveiws on amazon about your book.

“One step at a time. 40 years in the wilderness is a very long time. You can’t undo it in a day. ”

me- ever notice thruout history when ideas finally start to resonate and well spoken , savvy media , we- can -really -win- this folks finally step in . they always seem to think they are the ones that made it happen …they never seem to give respect or credit to the folks who kept the ideas , dissent and truth alive when noone was listening , when noone cared and when the people werent so scared they have finally started listening. IMO , its always harder to stand up for change in the beginning then in the end….

Even David Nolan understood that when dealing in campaigns and elections , some filtering of ideas are necessary . In appealing to anyone you have to consider the audience , in recruiting lefties I wouldnt say “abolish all schools” , id prob start with a Voucher idea and reel them in .

wayne is excellent at what he does , where he goes wrong IMO is insulting others as debaters.

we only debate with eachother because we all think our ideas are better.

Ive never been the super star , or the quarterback , i never got media attention or nothing fancy, but when I found the LPNevada , we didnt even have bulk mailing , we stuffed envelopes , and usually 1 or 3 people. Ive walked my limpy ass in JAMES Dans entire district , recruited volunteers , stood outside the post office protesting taxes with 6 other people , traveled and tried to start affiliates , been in charge of PR ,sent out media announcements and had a mailing list when the Party didnt have one . IIve organized fundraisers , run for office , manned booths , stood outside in 110 degree heat ona freakin megaphone while my team passed out literature in traffic , I ALWAYS showed , Ive donated production equipment , items for raffle , and attended events when noone gave a shit. I sat in endless business meetings, helped write a platform , and was always the nice one bringing people back . I gave my everything and lost some of the best friends Ill ever have and fuck you if you think i was just a debater , and JS the same thing if you truly belive you built and worked the LPNevada all by urself

@ 146. You are speaking in general I hope.
The OHIO LP is bigger, stronger, and more stable than it has been in years. It takes leadership and a solid team effort, all moving in the same general direction.

I didnt mean to write so many ina row , I havent visited in awhile and while reading I just had to comment and then read some more and got a little madder ..and ended a pretty mature, fair and respectful commentary with a fuck you I got so mad…lol

Frankly I think we should be a bit embarrassed that some on the LNC worked to invite Johnson to our party given the conditions in our own house. Membership is down, fund raising is stagnant and the internal infrastructure to support candidates is lacking. A classic example of the latter is the web site which has a number of issues on it that have not been updated in years. Over the last few years I have emailed members of the LNC about the poor condition of the web site. Their response has been poor.. Only one or two members seem to think up dating the issues section of the web site is important.

I think we can be assured that most people visit the web site looking to see what the LP’s position is on a certain issue, but when we have out dated information or nothing at all they are not likely to stay around.

I could be incorrect but in recent months only the foreign policy issue has been updated. Health care and others are certainly lacking. In some case the site suggest that tax credits be offered as a step to solving a problem, which is odd since the LP wants to abolish the income tax. Other issues such as mass transit and urban sprawl are ignored, but are important to our opposition. It would be beneficial to Libertarian candidates who run for local offices to have more local issues represented on the page. We should begin there and next develop some decent literature on the issues for candidates to have available. At one time we had some literature to hand out but it has been discontinued without being replaced. Unfortunately that does not seem to be an interest most of the LNC membership has. Frankly I think it is time to clean house.

“Frankly I think we should be a bit embarrassed that some on the LNC worked to invite Johnson to our party given the conditions in our own house. Membership is down, fund raising is stagnant and the internal infrastructure to support candidates is lacking.”

But don’t you see? [Insert Candidate Name Here] is THE POLITICAL MESSIAH who will magically change all that.

All you have to do is nominate him for president and money will fall from the sky, membership applications will flow in like the crowd at the buffet on Senior Citizens Discount Day, and all of the cable news networks will beg for permission to station camera crews at LPHQ 24/7/365.

Because, see, all that really matters is finding a candidate whom most of the delegates think they might have heard of once somewhere.

I wonder if anyone in the LP could give me an opinion. I recently thought about how high Johnson’s polling numbers were in New Mexico and what would help him to sustain those numbers.

My only solution was this: A concentrated campaign in New Mexico. Barnstorm the state. Of course, he’ll need to leave frequently in order to fundraiser and do national media interviews. But imagine the media that would be attracted by winning just that one state.

Showing up in NM is nice, but he’s not likely to win that state. So, while it’s “nice” that his favorite-son status has him polling well, so what? Now, if he can come in second, that might be interesting…

Focusing on the deep-blue states, he can make the case that it’s not a wasted vote to vote against Obama, since Obama will win that state anyway. These are the places to wrack up potentially 100s of thousands of votes…

168 gp: There were early polls showing he was doing well in NM, and resources were concentrated there. The tactic failed.

me: Would you say this is definitive proof that NM is not fertile for GJ? Or would you say that the variables are substantially different between MB 04 and GJ 12? Like, for ex., the first observation was a non-public figure and the second was governor of that state for 8 years…

“Resources were concentrated” in New Mexico for one week of the campaign.

The campaign commissioned Rasmussen to do polling in New Mexico before and after a one-week visit by Badnarik, during which TV commercials were also aired.

As of the day before the visit, Badnarik polled at 5% in the state, with the crosstabs showing the bulk of those votes coming out of John Kerry’s hide.

As of the day after the visit, during which Badnarik made anti-war speeches and the campaign aired ads laying out Kerry’s pro-war record, Badnarik still polled at 5% — but by then, counter-intuitively, the votes were predominantly coming out of George W. Bush’s hide.

Interestingly — and of course we asserted cause and effect — both Bush and Kerry, neither of whom had visited New Mexico, suddenly decided to do so right in the middle of Badnarik’s campaign swing. And during his visit, Bush announced a plan to withdraw US forces from the Korean peninsula.

Anyway, while that was probably the single largest Badnarik campaign trip/operation, it did not consume the bulk of campaign money, time or other resources.

If someone was to ask me, and I doubt that anyone will, I would concentrate my efforts on ending the wars, that includes the drug war and bringing the troops home. The candidate could emphasize the lack of change that the Obama administration has produced. That might have some impact on the youth vote that turned out heavily the last time around.

Darryl I have seen most of Lee Wrights’ campaign news releases and I strongly agree with his approach. I think he has done well and is making us proud as an activist and candidate.

Regardless I am pushing this point because there are other candidates who are not so focused. But hell I can’t get the LNC to pay attention to the need to up date the issues section of the web site so I don’t really expect anyone else to pay attention to what I have to say on any thing.

And how did Badnarik do that? Was he polling double digits in his home state?”

The Badnarik campaign targeted a few swing states with more of their (small) advertising budget. One of those states was New Mexico (I think that Nevada was another one).

Badnarik’s vote total in New Mexico wasn’t anything special, but I can say that the advertising campaign there did have some positive effect. I petitioned for the Libertarian Party of New Mexico in the fall of 2005 and I ran into quite a few people who knew about the Libertarian Party because of Michael Badnarik and they all signed the petition enthusiastically.

@160 -Mr. Wilson could you spare the time to write updates for the concerned areas you have, clearly specifying which ones you want replaced? If so, I guess they will have to be cleared by someone before they are used, but I think many would appreciate your effort. Carla Howell may be the one who will be in charge of the website. I don’t know, but if you already have everything typed out you can email it in after we get an assurance someone will get it in gear and FIX it. It will be simple for them to just transfer your emailed replacements.

They will certainly agree to update in a POTUS election year. If you can find the time I will assist you in seeing that someone takes you serious this time. (you know, break some kneecaps or something)

@169 -RC you are definitely on to something! There are now 39 states (incl’ DC) which have voted the same Party a minimum of 4 of the last five POTUS races. The vast majority have to go back over twenty years to see a change. The LP nom can actually go into any of those states and tell the truth to the D&R and media lies that he/she IS NOT a spoiler ! The voter can send a message without fear ! The larger states (NY, IL, CA, TX, etc.) are where the people are located !!! Now the 12 swing states this cycle are another story. The LP, GP, AE & even CP can perhaps sway the issue to Obama or the R with activity in swing states.

Obama is sitting on 242 EC votes in solid D states (remember 270 WINS) while the Rs have only 168 solid EC votes. There is no room for error for the Rs, so Obama will be very hard to unseat!

The LP must rai$e a large amount of fund$ and use them wisely if they are to have any effect.

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Will you donate to help fund ballot access petition drives in New Hampshire, South Dakota and many more states?https://www.lp.org/contribute
For more information, or to arrange an interview, contact LP Executive Director Carla Howell at 202-333-0008 ext. 222carla.howell@lp.org.
Always give until it feels GOOD, Thx !!!

Mark Hinkle told this reporter — http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316553 — that Johnson was paying LP dues while he was the governor of New Mexico. Libertarian governor is a pretty good resume for a Libertarian presidential nominee.

179 K&Y: There are now 39 states (incl’ DC) which have voted the same Party a minimum of 4 of the last five POTUS races.

me: Yes. Thanks. Red states tend not to be populous, but a case could be made that TX could be target Obama-leaning voters.

The beautiful thing is that “targeting” need not be radio and TV. And Internet ads can be relatively inexpensive to produce high quality product. Off the top, Team GJ could flood, say, the websites of the NY Post, Boston Herald, Orange County Register, and Houston Chronicle with a WHY WASTE YOUR VOTE? series. Take it head on. Point out how the Rs and Ds have failed to deliver on what they say, often doing the opposite over the years. Build the narrative that the ONLY non-wasted vote is to vote your conscience. But, for those who’s habits die hard, point out that Rs in blue states and Ds in red states REALLY waste their votes.

Mark Hinkle told this reporter ­ http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316553 ­ that Johnson was paying LP dues while he was the governor of New Mexico. Libertarian governor is a pretty good resume for a Libertarian presidential nominee.

I hope he had permission from Gary J to release that information.

Membership status should be regarded as confidential information unless 1) they’d donated over $200 (because everything above $200 is reported to the FEC) or 2) gave the LP (or one of its officers with access) permission to verify their status to others.

Although, there is also free membership, which continues indefinitely once you have signed the membership pledge unless/until you revoke it, which Johnson did not. So in a sense yes, he was an LP member as governor.

It had been discussed publicly quite a few times by other people before that. My guess would be that now that Johnson will be seeking the LP nomination he will be using it as a selling point that he is not entirely a newcomer to the LP, as his supporters have been doing already for months now.

Johnson also mentioned it in a 60 minutes interview years ago. They asked him why he was not in the LP rather than the GOP given his views. He said he had briefly joined the LP but found it to be too extreme.

‘Mark Hinkle told this reporter ­ http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316553 ­ that Johnson was paying LP dues while he was the governor of New Mexico. Libertarian governor is a pretty good resume for a Libertarian presidential nominee.’

I hope he had permission from Gary J to release that information.”

This is NOT accurate information. Gary Johnson was a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for one year back in the 1990’s, but it was BEFORE he was Governor of New Mexico.

Also, anyone who donates more than $200 per calendar year to any political party has their name, address, and donation amount posted on the Federal Elections Commission website ( http://www.FEC.gov ). This is public information.

As for Gary Johnson having been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for one year back in the 1990’s (before he was Governor), this was already acknowledged in public at the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts State Convention back in 2002 when Gary Johnson was featured as a speaker at the convention.

“Membership status should be regarded as confidential information unless 1) they’d donated over $200 (because everything above $200 is reported to the FEC) or 2) gave the LP (or one of its officers with access) permission to verify their status to others.”

Anyone who donates more than $200 per calendar year to any political party has their name, address, and donation amount posted on the Federal Elections Commission website ( http://www.FEC.gov ). This is public information.

It should also be pointed out that LP News prints the names of new members to the party. I don’t know if they are still doing this but they were doing it for a while.

Anyone who donates more than $200 per calendar year to any political party has their name, address, and donation amount posted on the Federal Elections Commission website ( http://www.FEC.gov ). This is public information.

Umm… Duh!

That’s what I said.

$0 to $200 donors are NOT public. It is the $0 to $200 members I was speaking of having a passing case for privacy. The exception would be the individual himself releasing his membership status, or giving permission to others to do so.

It should also be pointed out that LP News prints the names of new members to the party. I don’t know if they are still doing this but they were doing it for a while.

I remember that; however, as I recall they printed initials with last names. I’d have to go through my back issues to be sure. I remember thinking it was a marginal idea (however it was done, initials or full names) at the time.

Seeing as how there are 300 million Americans, many of whom have the same name as others, I wouldn’t see that as release of confidential information (although I’d probably make exceptions for extremely unusual names (“Leon Urbanski” for example).

Now, if their address was released along with their name, or if, say, a speaker at a local event was identified by an LP official as a dues-paid member, that would no doubt turn it into personally-identifiable information and I would suggest that it never be done sans permission.

Many LP activists (including certain LNC and LNCC members) believe in the myth of simple solutions to the institutional barriers facing third parties. This led them to recruit Congressman Paul in 1988, Congressman Barr and Senator Gravel in 2008, and now Governor Johnson for 2012. They hope that someone who formerly held elected office in a major party will be equally successful when running with a third party — as if these former major-party elected officials have some personal quality that all of the people who consistently run as Libertarians must lack. And in each case, when these formerly successful major-party politicians run as Libertarians, they tend not to do much or any better than our candidates who didn’t just come from a major party. His past election wins as a Republican are honestly not a reason to support Gary Johnson for the LP nomination for President.

That being said, Johnson is a much better libertarian on the full spectrum of issues, in my opinion, than Paul, Barr, and Gravel. And as Republicans go, he’s as libertarian as you’ll find. That’s why I registered Republican for the first time in over a decade and a half — to support Johnson in the GOP primary. I’ve made contributions to his campaign. His sign is in the front window of my apartment. I would be thrilled if he got the GOP nomination (and stranger things have happened — Newt was in single digits just a couple of weeks ago and is now the front-runner).

The LP nomination, however, is something entirely different. As I said, I don’t think he can do statistically any better in vote totals for the LP than one of our long-time activists. For me, it’s a question of getting our message out and educating people, and I think Harry Browne was the LP’s most recent candidate who was pretty good at this task. But I think Johnson could be as good at that or better. My concern is what the message will be that Johnson puts out there.

We’ve all heard the complaints about Johnson’s positions on a handful of issues. I hope he will be accepting Manhattan and NY LP’s invitations to visit us, and I’ll be sure to ask him about these issues. Until then, I’m reserving judgment on whether he would be a good Libertarian candidate for President. If Barr can do a complete 180 on medical marijuana and Defense of Marriage Act, it’s entirely possible that Johnson can realize that military tribunals at Guantanamo are neither necessary for safety nor anything but disastrous for liberty. And hopefully he’ll also realize that being so closely associated with Mr. Root is not the best way to win votes at convention.

It’s a refrain I keep hearing over and over. I don’t feel like digging for past examples just now, but maybe I’ll get a wild hair up my ass and find some for you at some point down the line – or I’ll just point you to the new batch about Johnson as they come in.

If you are motivated enough go back to the 2008 comments, and I’m sure you will find no shortage of people claiming that Barr would take the LP to the next level.

197 rb, Oh, now we’re only talking about taking it to the next level. I’d say Barr DID take it to the next level in some ways. GJ could, too. RP/GJ would enhance the chances of that happening even more.

So, of course, it depends on what “the next level” is. Barr sounded like a Big Leaguer to me when interviewed; most LP candidates sound to me like citizen-philosophers. Clark was packaged like a Big Leaguer, although he wasn’t one.

But, both you and the other Rob gave me the impression that you think that some Ls think we’d win with Candidate X. That I’ve not seen, and that IMO would be delusional.

Third Party Watch is no longer available, but they had articles about the possibility of Barr carrying various states – “gold states” to rival red states and blue states. Verney claimed the Barr campaign could raise 30 or 40 million dollars and people took him seriously. And so on.

So far, that a non-L (Varney) making one claim that I think was over the top (carrying states) and another that I don’t find to be all that incredible (could raise $30-40MM). Myself, I tend to discount hyperbole from operatives.

As for Varnier’s claim of geometric growth, that is CERTAINLY the idea, at least, up to a point. The idea is to trigger substantial growth that builds on itself. Using the word “would” vs. “could” is either overstatement or someone smokin’ s’m s’m.

As for worrying Romney or Gingrich, that’s not beyond the realm of possibilities, if GJ is competitive in NM and NM is a swing state.

200 99%, no, I’m not. Say we assembled a three tapes of 15 minutes long with the Browne, Badnarik and Barr and we showed it to a randomly selected focus group. The group is asked: Who of these three presidential candidates is most authoritative? Most knowledgeable? Most presidential? The focus group is told Browne is a financial author, Badnarik a software engineer and self-published author of the book GOOD TO BE KING, and Barr is a former congressman. They’re asked again, which of these three is qualified to be President?

My guess is that Barr would be chosen as the strongest candidate, probably by far.

Vanier is just an example of the kind of statement I have been hearing from numerous people for many years talking about Paul ’88 and Barr ’08 among others. I don’t feel like going through thousands of old comments to prove it. Maybe later, maybe not.

Barr did not take the LP to the next level in any way. His vote totals and fundraising were typical for an LP presidential candidate. Party membership and activism has not grown. We are not getting a lot more people elected, or getting them elected to higher offices than before, or getting higher percentages in any meaningful sense.

me: I’m feeling misunderstood. I agree that the vote totals and institutional metrics from the hastily put together Barr 08 campaign have been disappointing. My post 203 points to a different consideration entirely: media credibility, a subjective thing, but IMO a crucial one.

Since all the membership and vote numbers are small and insignificant, attributing an outcome to any candidate or campaign is analytically misleading at best. The LP is a minor party. Some want it to break into a more serious political force, and so far the attempts of Paul 88 and Barr 08 have not yielded any change in status. Paul 88 was setback by an embezzlement. Barr 08 was setback by a few things, including a late organizational start, alienating Paul and his supporters, and the candidate’s not having thought through some of his views and previous stances, e.g., DOMA.

Of course, by your logic, we could look at Bergland 84 and Badnarik 04 and conclude, perhaps, that the LP should, what, disband? Accept 500K and have fun making outrageous, crypto-anarchist pronouncements?

Some will overstate the prospects of Johnson or Paul/Johnson 12. Politics, if you’ve not noticed, involves some electioneering hype. I suggest: Deal with it.

It appears the Wrights 12 campaign is not saying things like this, which is from a Nov. 5 release: “In short, I will conduct the office of President of the United States by heeding the advice of the Founding Fathers….”

My feedback to Wrights was that speaking as if he would be elected was poor positioning. While anything is possible, I suspect we all agree that Lee Wrights won’t be “conduct[ing] the office of the President” in 2013.

To me, that means that some hype is expected, but over-the-top hype isn’t. It may be unfair, but candidates like Paul and Barr have more latitude in how they hype, since they have a claim at being constructively qualified. Our never-elected nominees don’t. Bless their hearts, and I’m grateful for their efforts, but electability requires some kind of resume. Our no-name candidates were communicators of ideas, not serious candidates, as I see it….

208 tk, yep, speaking in the subjunctive is indicated for a third-party candidate. I wouldn’t say that he or she should speak so much “as if he can win,” but rather to paint the picture of what it would be like if he or she did win…

Of course, by your logic, we could look at Bergland 84 and Badnarik 04 and conclude, perhaps, that the LP should, what, disband? Accept 500K and have fun making outrageous, crypto-anarchist pronouncements?

Harry Browne did a pretty good job overall. I don’t think Badnarik or Marrou were terrible either.

Do the experiences of Barr 08 and Paul 88 necessarily mean that Johnson (or Paul/Johnson) 12 is a bad idea?

I don’t think the point was whether they are a good or bad idea, rather that when assessing them as prospective candidates we should look at how crossover politicians from other parties have actually performed as Libertarian (and Green, Reform, etc) presidential candidates. Rob Power is correct that they do not do significantly, if at all, better than the no-name long time party activists. McKinney and Buchanan are non-LP examples of this.

I mean a candidate who can appear on camera and comes across with credibility.

There are different kinds of credibility. One is credibility in presenting libertarian ideas as something distinct from both liberals and conservatives, and the LP as something distinct from both the Republicans and Democrats. Painting the picture that the LP is mainly a way for conservative Republicans to vent their disgruntlement, usually before returning to the GOP seems to be, as you put it…help me out here…contra-something-or-other, right?

It is tempting to look at the performance of TWO past Rs that ran as Ls for president, take the results of those campaigns (whether in vote totals, membership growth, or any other metric) and draw some kind of conclusion about how an R running as an L is likely to perform this time. However, IMO, a sample size of TWO doesn’t mean much at all. There very well may be something to be said for nominating someone who has had success in one of the clown parties.

Third Party Watch is no longer available, but they had articles about the possibility of Barr carrying various states – ‘gold states’ to rival red states and blue states.

LOL!

“Verney claimed the Barr campaign could raise 30 or 40 million dollars and people took him seriously. And so on.”

I never took this seriously. I thought that the $35-40 million fundraising line was complete bullshit the moment that I heard it. I told other Libertarian Party members that this was bogus, but unfortunately there were too many naive people at the National Convention in 2008 who bought into that nonsense.

Rob Power said: “That being said, Johnson is a much better libertarian on the full spectrum of issues, in my opinion, than Paul, Barr, and Gravel.”

Ron Paul is way more libertarian than Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson wants to REPLACE the income tax with the Fair Tax while Ron Paul wants to END the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. This one issue alone puts Ron Paul leaps and bounds ahead of Gary Johnson as far as being a libertarian goes.

Gary Johnson has come out in favor of at least some US government intervention in foreign affairs while Ron Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison while Gary Johnson wants to keep it open.

Gary Johnson did not pardon anyone who was convicted for victimless “crimes” while Governor of New Mexico and Gary Johnson has defended not granting pardons by saying that he believes in working to change the laws and doesn’t believe that it is proper for a Governor or President to grant pardons to people who broke the law. Ron Paul favors granting pardons to people convicted for victimless “crimes.”

(I don’t know where Gary Johnson stands on jury nullification, but given his stance on granting pardons I wouldn’t be suprised if he was against it. Ron Paul supports jury nullification and he’s even got a chapter about it in one of his recent books.)

Gary Johnson has said that he only favors decriminalizing marijuana and does not favor legalizing other drugs. Ron Paul favors ending the War on Drugs completely.

Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, and he’s a much better all round candidate as well.

213 rb: There are different kinds of credibility. One is credibility in presenting libertarian ideas as something distinct from both liberals and conservatives, and the LP as something distinct from both the Republicans and Democrats. Painting the picture that the LP is mainly a way for conservative Republicans to vent their disgruntlement…

me: Yes, agreed. I would say both Paul and Johnson are viewed as different than most R pols. That’s why they are regarded as they are by the media – as small-L libertarians! Whether either is “L enough” for you personally is up to you. RP is pro-life might be a non-starter for you. GJ advocates the FAIR Tax…non-starter, perhaps.

Why anyone would be surprised that minor party candidates don’t do all that well is puzzling to me. The obstacles are very high, with or without a credible, qualified, well-known candidate.

Again, I contend that a L prez candidate is brand advertising, not direct response. With the possible exception of Clark 08, the brand enhancement has not led to significant changes in the L base. It’s always been tiny, despite best efforts. We remain in the minor leagues no matter who our candidate is.

Some may be happy playing out their 5-year contract with the Toledo Mud Hens and then going back to the family car wash business, knowing that they will never play in a World Series, much less win it. Batting .260 for the Mud Hens is not going to get the attention of the Big Leagues.

I’da thunk that the idea of politics is to facilitate political change. Maybe it’s not for some in the LP; maybe it’s a means to demonstrate one’s “purity” or something… Maybe it’s a convenient venting vehicle.

Cholko @215 That’s why the examples of past Democratic Congresswoman McKinney running as a Green, and past Republican nomination runner-up Pat Buchanan running as a Reform Party candidate, are also pertinent as well. That would be a sample size of four, or, if you prefer, FOUR.

Johnson is better on abortion, immigration and gay rights, and doesn’t have a newsletter problem in his past. However, the points you make in favor of Paul are also valid. Neither is libertarian on all issues. However, both are much more libertarian than the other Republicans or Obama. And both have a much more impressive resume than Wrights, Harris, Person, Gary, Burns, Milnes, Duensing, etc. That is a factor to consider, although Power is correct that the evidence indicates it will not lead to any major breakthrough electorally or organizationally.

“Verney claimed the Barr campaign could raise 30 or 40 million dollars and people took him seriously. And so on.”

I never took this seriously. I thought that the $35-40 million fundraising line was complete bullshit the moment that I heard it. I told other Libertarian Party members that this was bogus, but unfortunately there were too many naive people at the National Convention in 2008 who bought into that nonsense.

@218 Given your analogy, nominating Bob Barr was sort of like abusing steroids in the hope of making the big leagues, failing, and winding up with nothing but roid rage, acne, man boobs and shrunken testicles to show for it while the family decides whether the car wash would be too much responsibility.

Hugh @200 said “…both have a much more impressive resume than…Milnes…”

But Milnes is one of the great political thinkers in American history. He has certainly outlined the greatest political strategy in our lifetime – PLAS. Clearly, that is much more impressive than all of the names you mentioned, including Paul and Johnson. Please do not insult Mr. Milnes by lumping him in with that bunch of losers.

221 hm, it would be VERY easy for me to jump on the “Hey, Let’s Blame Bob Barr” for all the LP’s dysfunction. I, after all, do not associate my views with right or fusionist Ls. I’m pro choice. I’m an East Coast “Orange Liner” to use the Rockwell crew’s term.

However, I’m not a fan of denial or scapegoating.

Barr 08 was disappointing, although most of the sub-optimal performance can be attributed to 1) haste and 2) arrogance. The upside is he did a pretty good job on the tube.

The way I look at the numbers, the LP 07 and now are pretty much in the same place. So, nope, no ‘roid man boobs as I see it. Instead, the promising high school hero proved unable to hit the curve or the change-up, finishing the season batting .240, so he went back home to be with his girlfriend.

Since I had earlier in this thread mentioned my misgivings about Gary Johnson as an LP candidate, I’d like to say that he has addressed my concerns, and I’m glad to be a supporter. From the announcement of the party switch that specifically mentioned his support to marriage equality, to his clarification at the Manhattan LP convention that he did in fact pardon non-violent drug convicts and would end the practice of detention without trial (regardless of citizenship) in Guantanamo, he has answered all of my questions to my satisfaction.

Rob @227 – I watched the Manhattan LP convention video, and was also impressed by Gary Johnson’s claim that (“I pardoned hundreds of individuals that were convicted of drug crimes in New Mexico” )

That claim however is clearly at odds with Andy’s contention @217, that “Gary Johnson did not pardon anyone who was convicted for victimless ‘crimes’ while Governor of New Mexico and Gary Johnson has defended not granting pardons by saying that he believes in working to change the laws and doesn’t believe that it is proper for a Governor or President to grant pardons to people who broke the law”

Andy, can you provide any documentation for what you’ve said above? Or can anyone else here shed more light on Johnson’s record with regard to pardons, one way or the other?